cakeistheanswer

Well this is the most dystopian thing I’ve seen today. The RFK article alone is a single right leaning source quoted twice and does 0 analysis on any claim.

If you fundamentally believe quoting NBC and the NY post is useful as ‘both sides’, I think you’re a shame to your name, or beyond sheltered.

I’m not even endorsing it, but if you want at least a veneer of lefty opinions start with Jacobin, they’re the ideological opposite of Fox news if there is one. And even on the worst day the content is better sourced.

Quoting fox news and NPR is useful if you have something to add, or analyze, not scrape and then provide no direct quotes.

You want an actually useful AI project? Take every direct word from public speeches and fact check it from public/govt DBs.

I’ve checked the frontpage from time to time just to monitor what’s changing, but I have yet to log in.

My, if it isn’t the consequences of his own actions come to find Elmo again.

Wow, I didn’t think they’d implement anything more cancerous than various site preferred paywalling. This reeks of needing some good numbers to blow out headed into the IPO.

If it’s this bad already, get ready for a circus.

I used Feedly before defaulting to reddit as sites slowly collapsed RSS functionally.

Curious to know as well, but most of the time I see a couple sites mentioned that I haven’t been impressed with their ability to sift the trade mags and studies I was in it for.

It’s a distilled version of ‘the wisdom of the crowds’. With all the dog piling that comes with reactions to things that are pointed at the wrong audience. There’s generally some people with baggage in there somewhere who will take issue, and you get downvoted.

However, what’s always interesting about these platforms is where good ideas rise, where they come from, and how controversial they are, all of which you lose with the twitter/mastodon architecture.

It may be easier to find your crowd, but how useful is that to you depends on what you use your online presence for.

When the barrier to entry is technical in nature you get a selection of the competent in that space as your representation. It’s not perfect, but it beats zuck, musk and Huffman.

If we didn’t live in a universe of an obviously (over)reactionary electorate this might be the ideal.

The problem is consensus building takes time, as long as political wins are narrow you’re reinforcing the outage cycle.

I’ve got 2, largely out of curiosity for what defederation meant as far as user perspective.

When exporting comes online I’ll likely make an effort to spin up an instance if it’s still feasible… So there will be a 3rd cake?On the positive side I don’t think you’re going to find many people wanting to sock puppet mild takes and noise rock.

Probably true. it’s the agencies who are desperate and likely to be looking to chatGPT to outsource ad copy who are going to be looking to capitalize.

No community is really above being targeted, because the good campaigns done by people in the niche tend to be indistinguishable from good posts.

This is near inevitable if this platform takes off.

Advertisers gonna advertise.

From a lifetime of small message boards It’s easier to drive engagement in smaller groups. If there’s less overall exhaustion with the basics in any niche, splitting the new members is a good way to keep differentiated material. Also growing communities can end up boxing out their regulars. It might be hard to get started, but the small communities tend to be resilient at some point, they just migrate service to service.

Most of the people who moved here were especially motivated to overcome the barriers to entry to, so I’m not sure the numbers still hold.

One can hope, even as far back as Usenet the overall general self interest is always a pile-driver to the platform.

I think we’ll all be around to find out. Whether they end up federated with everyone else is up for debate, but the products still follow the eyeballs.

Advertisers especially are going to note how high engagement is compared to the other platforms, the rest will take care of itself eventually.

It’s a well founded worry.

Activitypub represents the lowest dev entry costs and as a bonus it comes with an audience. If Facebook is standing up a cheap competitor just to take advantage the barrier to entry is miniscule.

Given the trouble some users have noted deleting content (erasing also kills your Instagram account), it might also be a play to deprecate a duplicate platform under their control.

Isn’t the key operating word here business?

With no advertising on the line and no operations currently in place operating at anything but a loss there isn’t a commercial interest at stake.

Understandable, and yet if nobody contributes upvotes out of the same concern you end up with nothing standing out in your feed to come comment on. Kind of circular.

On the other hand having an upvote actually attached to your (and I actually mean your handle here) name would likely give it credibility in a weird sense. There’s much less incentive to blindly upvote if it essentially shows what you saw like a slug trail, but if you’re selectively giving oxygen to the best of what you see then that trail is valuable to others who value you. It’s a functional change from competing to push things for their own sake.

Im old! I come from an era where there was no such thing as OPSEC as soon as you interact with another party you cant personally name. For every consumer that was the phone company, or literally right out the door. If you transmit (login credentials, personal info, search queries) the expectation is somewhere, someone or something is logging it. Not even maliciously all the time either, sometimes I got to some of this out of boredom. The corporate Internet just kind of acts like a middle man, because that same problem never went away, just siloed into companies.

Until we get to a future like Transmetropolitan where the expectation is your online presence has some dirty laundry (and hopefully leave out the other stuff), all the bits/bytes, not just upvotes, you transmit should have a limited expectation of privacy. This is just the best/latest reminder because every hack is the same problem, only the company has incentive to keep it quiet so it doesn’t hit their bottom line.

This is super interesting to me.

I think you’re right in that the user base has the same expectations despite a huge change in the model. But it’s going to be the same on any server, your circle of trust now has to include your instance owner everywhere on the fediverse.

In general there’s no expectation you can delete every email you ever sent either, just your local copies. Most of what you see here is similar with some new attached protocols (votes, markdown etc)

I’m sure we’ll see some evolution, but the entire infrastructure is a call back to when a single service wasn’t directly linked to a single business, and it shouldn’t be treated like one.

In other words I’m not sure the concession isn’t the price you pay to not have reddit/twitter in charge. Because any other architecture that had the convenience of having a single point to delete from is also going to be a single point of failure.

Fully expected to be buried since I’m late to the party.

That’s really only half of it, there is no real erasure possible when everyone’s holding a cached copy. Personally… I kind of like it, I don’t hold any value to the words I contribute here as long as they’re for everyone.

But everything and everyone is living in concentric glass houses here.

Normally not a comment I’d apply wordy science too, but let’s see if I can do better than an upvote. Because this is exactly what I can’t let go lately.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/1/013029/pdf

Authorship of paper is 2016, and we’re always talking about larger populations than CEOs, so there is going to be 0 scientific rigor that can be applied to any study.

Still given the perspective of social behavior being about the product of advocates/bigots on any platform; where are the good, non rent seeking social media CEOs? The standard bad behavior of social networks is always around the issue of monetization, the first wave of ‘well meaning’ people have been replaced with a mandate for profit and a limited playbook. The social contagion was taking buyouts, now it’s turning screws to users.

Weirdly Zuckerberg looks like a model citizen, he’s still playing the growth game.