Assuming you mean “Can Mastodon instances defederate with Threads?”: Yes. Mastodon (and similar services) run on the ActivityPub protocol, which allows them to decide who they do and do not federate with. Many instances have chosen to preemptively block Threads, many have chosen not to. Pick what works for you.
by adding features you can only get if you are on their platform. Their goal is to make most people prefer the Meta version of the fediverse
Why is this a bad thing? This is the system working as intended: a company forced to make a service people want, rather than just taking users for granted. You resist enshittification because you’re not being held hostage through access to content, so the company is forced to make the service good. And this will attract other companies to produce competing services.
And besides, most people already prefer the Meta version… they already have the user advantage. There’s already way more users locked in their services than there is on the rest of the Fediverse.
I am optimistic about Meta’s investment in the Fediverse. If you don’t believe the Fediverse can survive the embrace of big tech, I don’t think you believe in it at all. You don’t want an open web, you just want to be the one in control. The goal of a decentralized internet - in my opinion - is to separate content from service. And if you believe that is the future, then you have to accept that companies are going to build new services that will try to monetize that content. But the beauty of that paradigm is you get to choose the service that works best for you without sacrificing access to the people or media you’re interested in. And really, it’s not much different from say, Google, being able to monetize Chrome because it can access your website. I mean… yeah, but that’s kind of the point?
Pre-0.19 I assume you would need to be on an instance that is blocking them.
Post-0.19 you can block them as an instance, meaning “any posts from communities which are hosted on that instance are hidden”
So, the answer still varies depending on your goals for blocking.
For clarity:
This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It’s like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?
I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is “Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?” If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.
I don’t really understand what the problem is.
Cadence or intonation depending on what you mean.
Edit: This would seem to sum up the various parts of speech pretty concisely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosody_(linguistics)
while yes it’s cool that I can talk to Lemmy from my Mastodon account, it’s quite a clunky experience
I do wish they were slightly more interoperable. It’s currently very hard if not impossible to discuss Mastodon posts directly within Lemmy, and likewise you can’t make a Mastodon-style post to your personal Lemmy profile. These may seem like unimportant changes, but I think much of that stems from still viewing these services from the frame of the limitations of what they are based on. They could be so much more!
Lemmy itself has big problems with the interoperability of servers. There are two major issues I see with the way communities are structured. The first is that listed subscriber numbers are for your server only, which makes the entire ecosystem seem way less lively than it actually is, which has the effect of making it even less so. Subscriber numbers should be fed in from a community’s home server.
The second is that there are many redundant communities, which makes it difficult for onboarding new users. There should be some way to group like-communities into super-groups based on topics. That way community leaders have the ability to easily aggregate similar content, rather than leaving it to the user to figure out, and you could opt-out as a user by simply not subscribing to the super-group community.
I’m sympathetic to the view that artists should be paid for their work. Collectively, artists have produced so much, and these tech companies are funnelling all their work into a machine and recycling it into new works, and profiting off that, without any compensation for the people partially responsible for this new reality. I’m also not interested in people who argue “but actually it’s not copying that’s not how the technology works it’s actually a really complic-” yeah I don’t care. Without the artists you would have nothing.
BUT
Don’t confuse the business practices that make this technology a reality with the technology itself. These tools are incredible, and will result in things that could have never existed previously. I just believe we need to have serious conversations about what they mean for our future.
Does it flush automatically? Could just be a sensor of some kind.
If not I’d report it to the hotel.
Fascism isn’t a problem we can solve by just not allowing it the more oppressively we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel we give to their extremes
This is a commonly held belief that is actually just not true. Certain garbage opinions and behaviours will fester and spread and absolutely make a space worse. Communities that allow toxic behaviour will both push away reasonable people, and attract people with toxic views. Setting proper boundaries, rules, and conduct are important for maintaining a place of healthy discussion.
I don’t mind if they have somewhere to talk with each other - I think you’re correct it’s pointless to try to stop that - I’m just not interested in spending any time there.
Limiting downvotes forces other people to think about bad ideas more, at the cost of letting people with bad ideas think about their bad ideas less. Ideally the bad idea has some tangible rebuttal that the original poster can consider, but ultimately the onus is on you to understand why your ideas aren’t landing. This is all presupposing an idea that is worthy of consideration. People aren’t obligated to convince themselves you’re right, you have the job of convincing others they are wrong, or realizing that you yourself are wrong.
Personally, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Use what you think is appropriate. If you’re unsure, use they/them; if they correct you, adjust accordingly. If you want to be most accommodating, default to they/them for everyone you meet unless they correct you or you learn otherwise. If you’d like others to feel more comfortable providing pronouns, providing your own - even if you believe it is obvious - can be a way to help normalize it for others.
The non-specific disdain people have for reporters, media, critics, news, etc. as if everything is created equal. I think there are many people working in news and entertainment media doing good work, yet a common refrain is “media today sucks”. I think it speaks more to how you consume, what you consume, and what you expect, if you believe there is some grand degradation of journalism. Media has certainly become more fragmented, with niches of content and wider levels of quality; the floor is lower, but I also believe the ceiling is higher.
Well actually, the dwarves were created by the smith god Aulë deep in darkness under the mountains of Middle-Earth, made to be strong and unyielding. I don’t think he cared much about their reaction to the sun, it stands to reason their skin would mirror the materials used by the god that created them - clay and stone. A darker skin tone makes more sense to me frankly.
I prefer not to consume content I don’t seek out, and I don’t really seek out YouTube content.
Some level of community merging seems both inevitable and necessary. Initially, my assumption was that a single instance would be the home for an individual community, but that’s just not how things work for many reasons. Communities of the same type should have a way to talk to each other, and more importantly, make it easy for users to follow them wherever they are. The current system is obviously inefficient for many reasons. I think there’s a lot of content across communities that is not being surfaced to users for whom that content is relevant, and it is making the entire system feel less lively than it could be.
I understand the sentiment, but there are things not worth knowing. I don’t care who was drafted in 1987 by the San Diego NFL team. I don’t care about the extras who appear in the 1957 film Witness for the Prosecution. I don’t care what you had for breakfast. My point is, I think your issue is less about curiosity, but of values. People who don’t value the things you care about, or worse, don’t even value the things they purport to care about.
It’s based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it’s not blind belief.