These are all me:

  • @cerevant@lemmy.world
  • @cerevant@fanaticus.social
  • @cerevant@lemm.ee

I control the following bots:

  • @philly_philly@lemmy.world
  • @philly_bot@fanaticus.social
  • 1 Post
  • 217 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • cerevant@lemmy.worldtoLemmy.world Support@lemmy.worldPlease fix Rule 1.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose it could still be done as a read-only display of content …

    If the content is hyperlinks / torrent links to copyrighted content, then even a read-only copy is illegal. Lemmy (by virtue of ActivityPub) isn’t designed to access stuff remotely - the closest it could probably come would be to have links to the posts on the remote community, though adding a level of indirection is probably not enough to become legal.

    If you want to do illegal stuff on the internet, you need to use services that are hosted where it isn’t illegal. People yelling about freedom doesn’t change the fact that admins aren’t willing to go to jail for your warez.



  • Is there a place for something in between de-federated and federated?

    That’s what blocking a community is - if the instance does not allow anyone to subscribe to a community, the content from that community will not be mirrored locally.

    Is there not some kind of ‘gray-list’ that would allow risky content to stay accessible through home instances but behave more as a direct link

    The indirect approach you describe isn’t compatible with the underlying ActivityPub protocol. My understanding is that all communities are effectively local, even when their home is on a different instance. Federation just allows modification of the “local” content by another instance.

    (That is not to say that technology@lemmy.world is the same community as technology@lemmy.ml, rather that the two communities are accessed in the same way by the UI)








  • You will find that very often the scams, advice, self-help, doctrine, etc that draw these populations have one thing in common: if whatever it is doesn’t work, it is because you are doing it wrong, not because the guidance is bad. That’s why conservatives will defend the tax rates of people who have 5 orders of magnitude more wealth than they do - they believe that it is their own fault they aren’t rich, and that anyone can become rich if they just try hard enough. It is why religious conservatives will still attack birth control in the face of their own kids having unwanted pregnancies. It is why natural medicine people will defend their practices even after it sends them to the hospital. They are more willing to believe that they themselves are at fault than the principles they believe in.










  • While I agree there should be functionality to propagate changes to a community between instances when the host is offline, there is no practical way to share administrative control of a community. Any decision by an administrator to sanction a community or defederate an instance will just result in exactly the fragmentation you fear.

    The real solution is for small groups of communities with similar interests to gather on separate instances with few or no users. Meanwhile, other instances gather users with few or no local communities. This maximizes the benefits of cacheing community content while minimizing the impact of defederation. If a community host can no longer be maintained by its owner, that ownership can be easily transferred without transferring the burden of hosting hundreds of communities or supporting user logins.