Sur le microblogging: @rakoo@blah.rako.space Sur le web: https://www.rako.space/Sur xmpp: rako@conversations.imSur deltachat: https://i.delta.chat/#F2EACE10C8C69DE92EE5B72B308C75A6FA0B3479=&i=AXCOWs9ZS0ZlgudzJAm8ERqz&s=WZ2khNFSyDdAW-N3yjqQTnTK&a=phj2so4ey%40nine.testrun.org&n=Invite (si vous n'êtes pas du spam je vous ajouterai à mon vrai compte)
Wow, thank you for working on it so fast !
That's a very important question we need to address !
It makes sense for platforms to block reuse of identifiers: they identify something, if the thing changes it should get a new identity.
Identities are fundamentally that: how to recognize that something is not something else. Note that it really is something: the same person can have multiple identities, and an identity can be shared by multiple persons.
The main issue is that we have been immersed inside a State-based system for so long we forget it exists. The first thing that comes to mind when we talk about identities is our state-delivered identity: name, surname, address, driving license number, etc... there's a central all-powerful authority deciding what identity is given to whom, and they are unique and active as long as the State decides. In practice this has made identities a public-facing concern because the State is in charge of everything.
Centralized platforms, of course, reproduce the model. Both the State and capitalist platforms (or capitalist anything) act under the paradigm of total domination, there's no surprise here: the platform owns your identity, your data, your you. When we reproduce the same thinking in open/decentralized platforms we inherit the mentality although everything points to not actually wanting it: we don't want a platform to have control over our identity/identities unless we have control over the platform, yet in practice we do. We link an identity with a name, so of course names must be unique
We need to go back to the roots: what is an identity ? A way to differentiate two things to someone. Who can guarantee the identities we have ? Our connections. "Mom" is an identity in my contacts app; this identity is obvously not the same identity as "Mom" in your contacts app, although the name is the same. That's because this identity is not the same to me that it is to you. The entity "using" the identity is fundamental. That's something we forget when using centralized platforms: the entity "using" my identity isn't my contacts, it's the platform. To the platform, everyone must be unique, so must have a different name in their "contacts app". That is not a model that cares about us but about itself.
What model cares about us ? A model that puts the focus back not on the individuals being represented, but on the relationship. An identity can never be defined by biometrics or hardware keys or whatever technic that technosolutionnist rave about. Technosolutionnists by definition do not care about sociology, so they shouldn't be listened to for sociology issues. An identity will always be defined by who recognizes you as such.
What does it mean in practice ? Basically, we need to build communities of people taking care of each other. My access to the group chat shouldn't be defined by a technical solution to access the app; if I lose access to the technical solution, the community still knows my identity as the same, so it must be able to re-integrate me without a hurdle, whatever the technical means.
What this means is that identities shouldn't be public-facing. They should be something inside a community only, defined by it with the means it decides.
How will your UI display comments like a chatroom when they are deeply nested?
Simple: there is no nesting :) it's a flat chain ordered by date. It's a design choice by zulip, not necessarily better in all cases, but is driven by different design decisions: discussions are expected to be about converging to something, so everyone is expected to read everything in a thread. If the subject diverges, it is expected to move to another thread. So instead of branches there is a set of topics, and you can mute some if you want to
So we have the basic architecture already there and it wouldn't be much work to provide what you need.
Indeed there is the architecture, it should be feasible. I might join and even have a go at it at some point (so I can add the before/after haha)
Thanks for the pointers !
It costs $34 a month for an experiment. It doesn't cost anywhere near that for a node that is running, used by thousands/millions of people, ingesting millions of pdses. Don't be misled by a nice experiment. You need servers, backups, people to run that. See what real world deployment looks like: a little bit under 100k a year for the only independent full stack.
There's no need to self host as there's already public third party instances you can switch to.
Yes it's possible. It's just not the default. That's the issue
it's not something the fediverse is immune to either.
true, although no one said the contrary
This is just incorrect. RSS is probably one of the least centralised protocols right now, it's not even federated, which makes me question why the author even included it as an example
The argument isn't whether something exists, it's what people use: rss is amazing but it's far from being mainstream. The default path to following isn't rss, which is the point (and the problem).
It's not an argument against federation. It's an argument to look beyond the niceness of a tech.
No, the main argument is that the main relay is, and for the foreseeable future will be operated by bluesky. This means that bluesky can decide what is and isn't visible, but that's not my biggest issue: to me the bigger problem is that bluesky sees everything that everyone says or thinks about anything.
Yes, it is possible to change. As TFA says:
But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.
It doesn't matter that a few can be free: the vast majority goes where the lowest friction is because they have their life to live, and the lowest friction leads to the centralized bluesky
I'm sorry, but it's like you haven't read the post:
But every counter-argument to the concerns above rests on the same foundation: technically, users can leave. Technically, you can self-host. Technically, you can run your own relay. The capability exists at every layer. But people don't do these things. They never have with any protocol. Not email, not RSS, not XMPP. The default wins. Always.
It is always technically possible to do differently. It's computers after all: anything can be coded. And most people won't because they have their life to live. What matters is the default, and all the incentives point to the default being shittier as time goes on.
The most crucial point is the relay. Yes, appviews can work without, but then you miss everything that is happening which is probably the number one reason people go to bluesky rather than the fedi. Relays are a fundamental part of what makes bluesky attractive and they require large capital to run and maintain, so it all points to bluesky still running the main one that most will connect to
Hello there !
I'm working on a new kind of interface. I'm very fond of how Zulip works: discussions are all part of a specific Topic (which in piefed would be a Post and its Comments, not a piefed's Topic). A topic has a beginning and usually has an end. Topics are all part of Channels (piefed equivalent: community). It's a pretty standard way of modeling data, but the innovation is in the interface: everything can be merged in a combined view with every comment and every post in a single "timeline", giving you affordances of a chat. Using chat affordances makes discussion and contribution easier, and using a combined view allows you to very quickly follow each topic you are interested in and filter out the topics or even channels you're not that interested with. Of course with the possibility to see all of them specifically.
It's hard to describe in words (they have their own explanation for more details), much easier to try it out if possible. Here are two screenshots showing how it can look like: the first shows a combined view of posts and comments in this community, and the second one shows a post and its comments
The current API pushes towards a certain type of interfaces: the hierarchical "view communities" -> "view posts in a community" -> "view post and comments". Not a bad thing in itself, but it's not the most straightforward for my use case:
- to me, posts and comments are really the same but they're in two different endpoints. I need to do some logic to "merge" them
- I would like to have the new posts/comments as they arrive, so some kind of realtime-ish stuff. Maybe polling could be enough if the API could return 304. Maybe long-polling could work (the server doesn't respond yet, but waits for actually new content to arrive to return the response)
- But for long-polling to work there needs to be some kind of "since" or "after" parameter. As a more general point, "after"/"before" is much much better than offset-based pagination: pagination isn't really useful (no one wants to go to page 7, we really want to go to the next or previous page, or around a specific point in time) and is bad for the database (with pagination, all items need to be fetched from disk and sorted before dropping them; with a "before"/"after" the index directly says which items will be fetched. More details in this nice page )
I'm not expecting you to change the API just for me, this is just to inform about what might help me, but I think a realtime-ish api and a before/after param can also help others.
And thank you for the very nice work !
That's a good idea but you don't need a full instance, only a community in which you are the sole admin. Start with that, do backups, and evolve from that if you feel too cramped
The one where the bourgeoisie doesn't rule anymore
Thanks for your work 🙏
yeah, this is exactly what I have. Using piefed
Thanks !
That's the thing: tankies kill anarchists after the revolution has started. Liberals (more precisely reformists, social-democrats, middle-ground centrists) prevent the revolution from even happening.
At least with tankies there is a chance at true freedom. Which should be a thing to consider for social-democrats
PieFed help @piefed.social Unable to post a link with a tilde
Be sure to also check out https://github.com/go-ap/fedbox and projects by the same person, https://git.sr.ht/%7Emariusor/oni and https://git.sr.ht/%7Emariusor/box
Edit: there was an issue with links containing a tilde, it should be fixed now
I don't understand, how is yunohost not selfhosting ?
C'est totalement instrumentalisable, juste que les antifascistes ne sont pas des raclures instrumentalisantes comme peuvent l'être les fascistes
Forums are functionally much better than Discord, no question there, but what drew people to Discord and keeps them there is the chat affordances. You don't feel like you're participating in an agora, you just send stuff. There's much less pressure doing that.
Fortunately it is posible to combine both a forum architecture and a chat interface: this is what Zulip does and is to me the best replacement. Its major shortcoming is that it isn't federated but alternative clients should take inspiration from it
That's historical and can be traced back to how it was formed: some of the people were coming from the instances perspective, where a bunoh of people congregate and network, some from the individual website perspective where you can do absolutely anything and everything you want, you're home after all. So it landed somewhere in the middle: some very basic use cases were laid out, every platform did whatever they wanted and tried to fit the basic use cases in. Now we have independent platforms doing what they want and if we're nice we can, maybe, talk with others.
It's a sad state but some platforms, like emissary and bonfire, are trying to go beyond and offer the possibility for anyone to build their own interface on top. One should also defocus from mastodon and look closer at the friendica family of software which have always looked at fulfilling many usecases, so compability can be better than others
Capitalist propaganda is rampant on the fediverse. We need to discuss ways to combat this. Most big instances -generalist, tech or something are wholly controlled by bourgeois people who would rather uphold state violence than democracy. What do you think?
New Communities @lemmy.world C'est de la mIArde
Fediverse @lemmy.world Do we need more users ?
I really like FeatherWiki as a lighter alternative to TiddlyWiki, it has fewer features but all the important ones are there.
I also need to mention thât the fossil scm has an integrated wiki, stores everything in a sqlite database (it's made by the same people) and is also very lightweight