• 40 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jan 18, 2020


Yeah, others corrected me. My understanding was that you had to use the client from the app store to talk to the official server.

That does address that concern.

I mean trust specifically in the context of the technology. Things need to be independently verifiable. And thanks for correction regarding the clients, I was under the impression that you could only use the official app with their server. If you can use an open source client that addresses my concern regarding verification.

At the very least we can know that the protocol works as advertised. Since it’s E2E, I think it’s probably reasonable to assume that at least the messages themselves are secure.

What it ultimately comes down to is that truly secure systems cannot be based on trust. The article does a good job outlining all the ways the users have to trust Whisper Systems without any ability to do independent external verification.

Even if we assumed that Signal works as advertised the fact that it’s tied to your phone number is incredibly dangerous. Obviously if this information was shared with the government it will disclose your identity as the article notes. This information can then be trivially correlated with all the other information the government has on you and your social network. Given that Signal is advertised as a tool for activists, that means it creates a way to do mass tracking of activists.

Being centralized is another huge problem given that the service could simply be shut down at any time on government order. If you’re at a protest and rely on Signal it could just stop working.

edit: as people have pointed out, it turns out you can use third party clients

Finally, since the client is a binary distributed by Whisper, it’s not possible to verify that the client and server use the published protocol independently. Since alternative clients aren’t allowed to connect to the server, we can’t test the protocol and have to rely on trust.

I’m all for discovering better modes of interaction and fixing issues seen in commercial platforms due to perverse incentives used to build those platforms. That said, I think it’s also important to acknowledge what Fediverse has already achieved, and that it is a thriving and growing community right now. We can discuss the current limitations and problems while being optimistic about the future.

As I’ve pointed out earlier, I think there is a natural mechanism that encourages interoperability and we’re already seeing different platforms strive to become compatible at least to some extent. So, I don’t think there’s a real danger of Fediverse splintering.

At the same time, trying out new things does work best within a context of a particular platform. So, what Mastodon is doing with different extensions on ActivityPub is a reasonable way to experiment in my opinion. If these end up being generally useful then they can be added to the W3C spec eventually. My experience is that it’s typically much easier to identify use cases through usage, so you need a working platform with users on it in order to see how to improve things in a meaningful way.

I think that some divergence is likely unavoidable, especially in the early stages when people are figuring out what the needs for different platforms are. And different platforms have different ways of interaction that may not translate well to others. For example, Lemmy has threaded conversation while Mastodon doesn’t. So, there isn’t a 1-to-1 mapping here.

As long as ActivityPub covers the lowest common denominator platforms can choose how much additional functionality to add on top, and as long as there’s some form of graceful degradation then it shouldn’t be a huge problem.

Ultimately the more content can be shared between platforms the better, and there is a natural incentive for platform maintainers to try and follow a common path here because everybody benefits from that. Platforms that can talk to others will see more content and user interactions, while those that can’t will necessarily end up being more niche. So, I think there will be a natural selection pressure in the end to build things in an interoperable way.

There is no fallacy here. US state department states that the evidence to support the claim does not exist. The fallacy is trying to turn that into something that it’s not. We’ve literally gone over this for days, and the fact that you still can’t understand that makes me think that we’re not going to get anywhere. Have a good day.

sure, we’ll just use your private definition of the word fallacious if that makes you happy

At this point I really don’t see Fediverse going anywhere, it literally has millions of users and that’s a sufficient critical mass for it to exist indefinitely. Stuff like IRC also demonstrates that you don’t need to constantly change for the sake of change.

Sometimes a platform solves a particular use case well, and as long as people still have interest in continuing interacting that way then you can get to a stable state. At the end of the day there are only so many ways to do social media interactions, and over the years we’ve seen these distilled into a few commercial platforms like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I haven’t really seen anything really groundbreaking emerge since then.

I think the focus needs to be on identifying how people like to interact with each other, taking the best aspects of the mature existing platforms while also addressing their deficiencies. In my opinion Fediverse platforms have been largely doing a good job of that, and hence why we continue to see growth.

I think it pretty much has to be assumed that any commercial platform is mining user data and selling it to anyone who’ll pay for it, especially platforms that are “free” to use.

It’s not quite black and white in terms of disinformation control. While it’s not possible to control misinformation globally, it is possible for individual instances to moderate it and choose what instances they federate with. Since Lemmy isn’t being run for profit there aren’t any ulterior motives for keeping misinformation on the site either which has been a problem with Facebook in particular, and likely Reddit as well to a lesser extent. I think the community can keep itself honest as long as misinformation is seen as a negative by majority of the users.

You just keep repeating yourself like a broken record here. And you’re right it really shouldn’t be hard for you to understand what I said, yet you choose not to. Claims of genocide without proof are meaningless. Have a good day.

I was using language symmetric to the parent comment as a rhetorical tool. US state department very clearly states that there is insufficient evidence for claims of genocide. That’s denying the claim being made.

They say they are unable to prove it is genocide, not that they are unable to claim it is genocide.

Not being able to prove it is genocide literally means that they’re unable to claim that it is. It’s absolutely surreal that you keep twisting that into something other than what it is. Claims of genocide need positive proof.

In order to say something is happening you have to be able to prove it. This is the only thing that shouldn’t be hard to udnerstand here.

The follow up comment clearly shows that the claims of genocide are not credible. Meanwhile, US state department is hardly a neutral actor here. My only point in the original comment was that even they, despite their clear desire to call it a genocide, are not able to do so. You’re working overtime to not understand this.

You just keep repeating the same thing over and over here. You’re also conveniently ignoring my follow up comment that provides a lot more context and sources other than US such as the recent report from Italy stating that the narrative is politically motivated.

Nobody is changing any meanings here or gaslighting you. Insufficient evidence literally means that they do not have evidence. You’re the one changing definitions here while accusing others of lying. There has to be a positive proof of something happening, otherwise you’re just asking to prove a negative. It’s quite obvious that you do in fact want to play word games here.

You’re just playing word games here. Insufficient evidence means there is no ground to claim that there is a genocide happening. This is coming from the lawyers of a country that’s actively pushing the genocide narrative. If you bothered looking at my follow up comment, I provide a lot more evidence to support what I’m saying.

I think this highlights a more general problem of data ownership. People do not own devices and services they pay for in a traditional sense because the company gets the final say on how they’re used. Companies can decide to analyzer your data, share it with partners, and even prevent you from acces…