Rottcodd

As I just noted on another response, mostly it was that I came up with a delicious turn of phrase and couldn’t not post it. And yes, while broadly I think that Google deserves every bit of shit that’s thrown their way and more - that they could vanish from the face of the Earth tomorrow and the internet could only benefit - this particular incident really isn’t a good example.

I have to admit that I was so pleased with that turn of phrase when it came to me that I went ahead and posted it in spite of the fact that this specific incident doesn’t appear to be a good example.

It’s really sort of amazing how few years it took to go from “Do no evil” to “Don’t even bother pretending not to.”

Axiomatically, no, since it isn’t even AI in any meaningful sense of the term, so it fails to live up to its hype right out the gate.

Undoubtedly.

And that in no way contradicts, or even really addresses, my point, which is not about overall expenses, but about the distribution of them - the portion that goes to employee wages vs. the portion that goes to executive compensation packages.

They thought by raising wages, owners would cut into their own bottom lines.

I don’t think anyone actually thought that.

They’re simply making the point that the problem is not the wages paid to the employees, as you imply, but the obscene salaries paid to executives and franchisees.

That the American execurives and franchisees are not going to take the necessary steps to correct that problem pretty much goes without saying, but that doesn’t in any way change the fact that that is the problem

TikTok doesn’t engage in speech at all. TikTok is s platform on which people engage in speech. Those people include Americans.

So TikTok being legally considered a person or not, having rights or not and so on is irrelevant, since TikTok’s nominal rights aren’t being violated in the first place. The rights of the Anerican people are the ones that would be violated - they are the ones whose freedom of speech would be restricted.

IANAL but I presume that’s the argument they’re using - that when they say that it’s a violation of the first amendment, what they mean is not that it violates their supposed freedom of speech, but that it violates our inalienable freedom of speech (as it in fact, and obviously, does).

So… aren’t these wannabe twitter competitors going about the whole thing bass-ackwards?

I saw a broadly similar article the other day about some sort of shakeup in the Mastodon board of directors.

It’s as if they think the way do do an internet startup is to first appoint a board of directors and hire a raft of executives, then… um… you know… um… do some business… kinda… stuff…

I guarantee that the ADA works for whoever is the biggest source of revenue, and thus the biggest funder of executive salaries.

That’s just how it is in a system of hierarchical organizations. The executive positions inevitably come to be held by people who have come to hold those positions because they were the most willing and able to do absolutely whatever it takes to fight and claw and scheme and backstab their way into them. And those people not only aren’t inclined to serve any interest other than their own - they necessarily aren’t even equipped to. If they had any actual integrity, decency or empathy, they wouldn’t have been able to do everything they did to win the competition for the position they now hold, and it would’ve gone to some other scheming, manipulating, self-serving psychopath.

And thus, we end up with something like this. Inevitably.

Nicely clarified.

Yes - the way I said it leaves the possibility that they have to pay at minimum their profit, and no - that should not be the case. They should have to pay at minimum their total revenue.

This shouldn’t be an exception - it should be the rule.

At the very least, companies should be fined every single cent that they made off of something criminal, and really, they should be fined much more than they made.

If they’re fined less than they made off of it, it’s not even really a fine. It’s just the government taking a cut of the action.

Wrong about what? I don’t even get what the point is supposed to be.

Are you saying that people transition from Linux to Windows? That seems obviously backwards.

Are you saying that Linux is female and Windows is male? That’s not even coherent.

What am I supposed to be trying to prove wrong?

No, it’s not the same.

You’re only describing what would happen at the instance level, and skipping over the fact that the whole thing hinges on your identity on each and every instance actually being one and only one identity that would reside in one particular place. It would actually exist on, and be federated from, one particular server somewhere.

What that means, and the part you’re leaving out, is that whoever controlled that server would control your access to the fediverse as a whole - not just on one particular instance, which is the reality with instance-specific identities, but on all instances of all services.

The only way to avoid putting control over your access to the fediverse as a whole in the hands of one company would be to maintain your server on your own hardware, and as the article itself notes, most people can’t or won’t do that. So most people will end up with their identity on all instances of all services under the control of one specific company. Which is very much NOT the case now.

Now, if someone wants to somehow use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose - either maliciously or simply as a goad with which to extract profit from me - they’re necessarily limited to one identity on one instance of one service because that’s as high as it goes. They might, for instance, hijack or disable or demand a subscription fee for access to my .world identity, which resides on .world’s server. All that would mean to me though is that that one particular identity on that one particular instance would be compromised. I could still access the fediverse, and even access .world, just by coming in through my kbin identity or my lemm.ee identity or my .ml identity or whatever, since all of those are out of their control.

With this scheme, if someone wants to use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose, they have one specific place to do it - at the one specific server on which my identity is hosted and from which my identity is federated. With one move, they could hijack or disable or restrict extort payment for my access to ALL instances of ALL services, all at once.

Again, that is very much NOT the case today.

What you seem to be against is forcing you to have only one login. That does go against the model we are talking about.

And it isn’t what’s being suggested.

Yes - that isn’t what’s being suggested. And that’s entirely irrelevant.

The correct way to measure the threat a proposal poses isn’t by what’s specifically being proposed, but by what the proposal, if enacted, carries with it - what it necessitates, implies or even just allows.

As I mentioned before, and this seems to me to be the biggest potential threat vector, unless people host their identities on their own hardware, that information is going to be on someone else’s hardware. And that’s not going to be a charity - it’s going to be a business, that’s going to profit off of it somehow. If this proposal goes through and is relatively widely adopted, there will one day be an industry leader in the identity-hosting business, and that company will have leverage over the fediverse as a whole. And at that point it would be easy enough for them to, for instance, strike a deal with the biggest instances so that the instances, in the name of security or convenience or whatever might suffice, only accept registrations through that particular service.

I’m not saying that that will happen - only that it could. And that’s enough, in my estimation, to make it a bad idea, because if the history of the internet has shown us anything, it’s that if there’s a way for someone to control something and profit off of it, someone will control it and profit off of it, and the original proposal that made that possible doesn’t mean a damned thing.

Nothing about this idea implies centralization.

It’s a single identity that would be used to log in to all relevant sites. How is that not “centralized?”

There is no reason identity has to be tied to the platform using the identity

The reason I prefer that is that then that identity is specific and limited - it’s not me on all sites, but just me on that site. Me on another site is an entirely separate identity.

…and no reason why there needs to be a central identity store.

But with this, there is, for all intents and purposes, a central identity “store.” That’s how it would work - I provide whatever ID is used as a trigger and then the site would access “my” “store.” And presumably that would be an ongoing process, since another of the things that’s being floated is the ability to essentially federate all of my content across instances.

And all of that is going to have to be hosted somewhere, and if I don’t use my own hardware, then it’s going to be hosted on someone else’s hardware, and that means that they - not I - ultimately have control over it. Sure, they can promise that I maintain full control, but that can, as has happened far too many times in the history of the internet, just be a lie.

Granted that that’s the case currently too, again, it’s decentralized. Each individual instance just has control over my identity on that instance - not over my identity fediverse-wide.

In fact, right now my identity IS centralized to lemmy.world and I have no control over that.

Only your lemmy.world identity, which isn’t you.

Is that the part I’m missing? I still don’t understand what the supposed problem is in the first place. Is it that you feel that your lemmy.world identity is in fact “you?” Like that particular online identity is identical to your actual real world self, so not being able to use one and only one identity throughout the fediverse is existentially unsettling?

I’m still trying, and failing, to understand how this is a supposed problem in the first place.

Anyway, only your lemmy.world identity is (by a stretch of the term) “centralized,” and only to lemmy.world, and I guess to whoever it federates with. But that’s not you - that’s just one internet handle, for one site.

And the worst that can happen is that lemmy.world does something shady, in which case you can just create another identity at another site. And that last, as I understand it, was always the central point of decentralization - to make it so that harm that might be done was limited to only the one instance on which it was done, and couldn’t permanently harm the broader fediverse or an individual’s access to it.

Having one central identity though means that any harm done to or through that identity is done throughout the fediverse, and to the affected individual on all instances. That seems like a recipe for trouble, and seems to be directly contrary to the ideal of decentralization.

Your solution to create as many identities as you want is great for avoiding having one identity, but not an example of decentralized identity.

How is it not? My identity on the fediverse is spread around multiple accounts on multiple instances. That’s about as “decentralized” as it gets.

Yes - each identity is tied to a specific instance, so can be said to be “central” to that instance, but again, all that means is that that one instance can potentially cause me harm on that one instance. The rest of my identities are out of their control.

So with this single identity scheme, imagine that it’s somehow compromised or violated or held for ransome or whatever. That affects every single individual account I have throughout the fediverse. While with the way I currently do things, all it could ever do is affect the one account I have on one instance, and dealing with it would be just as easy as avoiding or closing that account. All the rest of my accounts, and my fediverse access broadly, would remain entirely unaffected.

How is that not the better alternative, and much more to the point, more in keeping with the ideal of decentralization?

“If you’re thinking of taking the tribe cross-country, this is the automobile you should be using - the Wagonqueen Family Truckster!”

Just imagine you go to a fediverse site, click “log in with ActivityPod”

It makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

That’s where the whole thing went wrong. When things started getting centralized, the internet started turning into a walled, commodified, ad-infested, bot-generated shithole controlled by a handful of loathsome megacorporations.

That’s exactly the sort of shit I want to get away from, and I rhought that getting away from that sort of shit was the exact point of ActivityPub.

Privacy would also increase because you could control every aspect of you identity

I don’t think that’s true.

I see no possible way that a centralized identity can be more private that an array of separate ones. And rather obviously, with a centralized identity, you don’t control every aspect of it, because it’s an established fact - when you go to a new site and sign up with that identity, it is exactly and only what it’s already been established to be, and it’s immediately tied in with all the others that use the same identity.

On the other hand, when I go to a new site and create a new identity from scratch - one that only exists on that site - I actually do control every aspect of my identity. It’s whatever I make it right there on the spot, and it shares exactly as much or as little detail with my other identities as I want it to.

Granted that I’m very cynical, I just can’t escape the feeling that all of this is cover for the real goal, which is simply to centralize the fediverse, so that a new group of opportunists can squat on top of another piece of the internet and extract rent from ir. We’re being told that this “problem” needs to be “solved” because “solving” it will, so they hope, create the next Google.

Serious question - why is this considered a problem? I don’t get it.

It doesn’t seem to be for convenience, since you’d still have to sign up for and sign in to different sites separately (which is obviously unavoidable - the alternative would be centralization, which is exactly what we’re trying to get away from).

Is it an ego thing? So that people can conveniently establish a sort of identity brand in the fediverse? Is it all about accomodating would-be influencers?

Or is it some sort of psychological thing? Like people just feel uncomfortable with separate identities spread around the fediverse? Like they’re somehow disjointed and fragile?

I can’t make sense of it. I have easily a dozen accounts spread around the fediverse, mostly but not all under the same name, and I have no issue with that. I don’t see a problem that needs to be solved. To the contrary, if anything, I’m wary of the idea of consolidating them - that just feels too much like moving back to centralization, just by a different scheme.

I just don’t get it.

The other answers mostly sum it up - it was initially made illegal primarily as a way to establish an “other” with which to frighten conservatives.

There’s another thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet though that I’ve long thought is relevant - is part of the reason that marijuana specifically was for so long (and still is in some quarters) so condemned.

Imagine you’re a corrupt politician, and you want to sell your constituents on the idea of going to war in the Middle East (so you can collect some bribes from defense contractors and oil companies) or instituting mandatory sentencing (so you can collect some bribes from prison contractors) or cutting taxes on the wealthy (so you can collect bribes from rich people and corporations) or any of the other, similar things that corrupt politicians want to do

Who would you rather try selling that idea to? A bunch of pot smokers or a bunch of drinkers?

I think part of the issue is that marijuana appeals to a part of the population that really is, to corrupt politicians and their cronies and patrons, “undesirable.” When they want to get the people all fired up in support of their latest bullshit, they want somebody with a beer in their hand, drunkenly shouting, “Yeah! Kick their asses!” Not somebody with a joint in their hand, muzzily saying, “Hold on a minute - you want to do what?”

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true.

How did you not get my point?

We’ll try it this way:

Thirty people live in a town.

Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented

Twenty of them oppose the policy.

The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy

The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can’t accomplish anything by themselves.

The policy gets implemented

Or

The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.

The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.

Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.

They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.

That’s exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because “I can’t make a difference by myself” can make a difference.

All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.