Nothing about this idea implies centralization. There is no reason identity has to be tied to the platform using the identity and no reason why there needs to be a central identity store.
In fact, right now my identity IS centralized to lemmy.world and I have no control over that.
Your solution to create as many identities as you want is great for avoiding having one identity, but not an example of decentralized identity.
I would like to be able to have multiple, decentralized, identities.
Yeah, it's the interest rate issue across the whole tech industry.
Permanently Deleted
I was always taught to put your best foot forward, but I have weird feet and a decent investment portfolio, so I start by sending unsolicited dick pics.
This is absolutely right. It's reductive of me to say that recycling is bad for the environment; intentionally reductive.
People generally have a very hard time absorbing the fact that plastic recycling is a scam, so it's hard to start nuanced to actually get the point across.
But you definitely nailed it. I would argue that if it was reduce, reuse, revolt, the environment would be in a much better place.
Sort of. It's less a guard down thing as a fraudulent hoax thing.
Recycling was actively brought forward as a solution by the oil companies to push the blame of plastic use onto consumers.
So while recycling rare metals is always valuable, plastic is definitely not. Almost all plastic gets buried in landfills, and the only way to make this not happen is to not make products with plastics.
By creating and marketing plastic recycling as a solution that the consumers must take onto themselves, it allowed them to rake in profits by moving everything to cheap plastic alternatives.
We are now literally made of microplastics as a result.
I'm fond of saying that recycling is almost exclusively bad for the planet. It's true and people don't like hearing it.
As the London devs even said, they are really excited for this new content and performance update, and they asked you to put down your pitchforks.
This is going to be a setback for the modding that has been done, for sure. That is the contract the mod community understands when they build their creations. It's very evident at every step of the way that you are not using consumer grade products with ABI guarantees.
But Bethesda has publicly stated they went out of their way to try to reduce breakage of mods this time compared to the skyrim anniversary version. So we have to wait and see what that means.
But if you want to hold back performance improvements for everyone because a small niche within the modding scene will have to update their mods to work, that's not a reasonable ask.
I can almost guarantee that more people care about the free next gen update of Fallout 4 than will ever play the Fallout London mod.
I'm legitimately excited for the Fallout London Mod, so this isn't meant to minimize it, but modding, even in Bethesda games, is a much smaller niche than people on here seem to think.
Bethesda is legitimately doing something good for the game, for free, and they announced it two years in advance.
The only upsetting part of this is that they recently announced a launch date and it is coincidentally close to when Fallout London was planning to release.
If that one coincidence wasn't happening, then nobody would be complaining about this pretty cool free update.
At least not until after it releases.
But what if I'd rather drive my ev?
That's all fair. I can see what you meant after reading it, so maybe it's more of a me thing than one you have to consider in any depth. I know I have issues around feeling heard that aren't the general. And people who don't like being called out for cis-typical behaviors tend to be various forms of awful people that don't really need to be included.
Anyway, thank you for the conversation and the blog posts. I'm using Hotspot Shield as a vpn, if that helps and looking at your site through Safari on my iPhone.
Thank you for the thoughtful response here.
If it helps, I feel like "Be an ally if you're cis and joining the conversation" might fit what you're saying and wouldn't have bristled me. But I recognize that it isn't your responsibility to manage the emotions of people who have unquestioned privilege.
I also hope this isn't a weird question but I noticed that I have to turn my vpn off to see your site. Is that intentional?
On the other stuff, I love that you're talking about the importance of account migration, and I like the idea of the concentric federation.
There's a bit more in there about scalability. So it's nice to see your thoughts around it. I was thinking that the opt-in process which messages you for approval was the closest to scalable from the former article, because it allows everyone the opportunity to opt in without requiring hidden knowledge. But it could also feel like some sort of fishing attempt to get a message asking for consent.
So I guess finding a way to build opt-in into the protocol in some way would be the most scalable option in the long term. However that could work.
I don't think you added anything new to the argument and their linked source addressed it from a technical and ethical perspective.
Personally, I don't think that it's reasonable when someone asks you to not do something for you to do that thing directly to them.
You've done that here. Whether or not you think you're bringing up good points, it's still pretty rude.
Anyway, you're right that this isn't about points. I started off trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you were respectfully responding to the article and just missed what they had said, but then you doubled down and triple downed.
I understand the need to try to voice concerns, and so I understand why you're continuing to push.
You are trying to fill in sections of colors that are touching, either in a straight line or a grid of blocks. The numbers are how many blocks are filled by that line or grid for that color.
It ends up being a mostly mindless but relaxing game.
DON'T say the things that developers who ignore consent typically say
That's likely to increase the pushback. If that's your goal, great, go for it! If not, though, it's best to avoid stuff like this.
- "Posting publicly gives implied consent to use the data"
I don't inherently agree with the article's ask, but you've literally only proven its point by stating, verbatim, one of their "please stop making us retread these tired arguments over and over" points.
OP links to a Mastodon thread from a user who breaks down the technical limitations of ActivityPub and proposes how the situation can be improved. Maybe read that.
Also, if you think that these are reasonable suggestions, then perhaps ignoring them directly isn't the best way to engage with this article?
Read the article, I didn't write it.
"Implicit consent" is another one they call out directly.
The article addresses this directly in the section on things to not say, though:
ActivityPub does indeed "makes assumptions that are fundamentally opposed to the kinds of protections that people seem to be seeking." But in a discussion about whether or not to get consent, even the ones that are true the miss the point – just because ActivityPub leaves open possibilities for you to do something without getting consent, that's not the only option.
I'm not sure there's a better way to put them, but I bristled at the two suggestions at a high level which tell me what to say or not say, and call out my being cis as a thing to be careful about.
I'm glad that I read them despite the bristling, because I found that they were things I wouldn't say or do, and they were reasonable suggestions.
But especially the cis comment made me kind of worried. As the platform grows these types of desired policies are going to be drowned out by the majorities.
All of the proposed solutions are intentionally not scalable ones, and seem designed to keep the platforms smaller and protected. This makes absolute sense especially when held up beside the marginalized peoples who are asking for them's experiences of being marginalized.
I hope that we can find ways that satisfy those needs even through growth. It would be interesting to see scalable opt-in solutions for this problem. It would especially be useful to integrate solutions into the protocol.
But in truth I was shocked to learn about robots.txt recently, and more shocked to hear how well-ish that type of solution worked until AI came along and ignored it. So it's anyone's guess as to how well similar solutions might work here.
That's similar to the "you're being inconsistent" thing that the article says not to say, kind of.
Consent isn't really built into ActivityPub and it's inherently the opposite of how I understand it to work (copying your content all over the place regardless of your desires).
But their argument is kind of reasonable.
Who cares?
We can change ActivityPub, but we couldn't change Twitter. People were tolerating worse just for the sake of having a community before they moved to the fediverse. They had no say before and they're asking for better from it now that they can have their voices heard at all.
Imagine if login was a federated feature in lemmy.
What this would mean is that I could go to lemmy.ml and login using my lemmy.world account credentials and people from lemmy.ml could go to lemmy.world and log in using theirs.
Neither could go to beehaw and login because it does not federate with the two of them.
In this world I could create an identity on lemmy.world and a separate identity on lemmy.ml if I wanted to.
Now imagine if I could login with my lemmy.world account on a non lemmy platform that lemmy.world federates with.
There's nothing centralized about this, and it is exactly in the spirit of everything else in the fediverse. To login on beehaw I would have to create an identity on beehaw or someone they federate with.
What you seem to be against is forcing you to have only one login. That does go against the model we are talking about.
And it isn't what's being suggested.