Same! I was hoping for a while that there would be a fediverse version of reddit. And it's succeeded beyond my wildest hopes. Other than the misinformation, but I suppose that's a problem everywhere.
Psst you're literally on the fediverse right now.
Oof. I want to cheer this project on as much as anybody, but there's no two ways around it, those terms have every appearance of being extreme and expansive. Just to copy it here for others to see:
When you post Contributions, you grant us a license (including use of your name, trademarks, and logos): By posting any Contributions, you grant us an unrestricted, unlimited, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide right, and license to: use, copy, reproduce, distribute, sell, resell, publish, broadcast, retitle, store, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part), and exploit your Contributions (including, without limitation, your image, name, and voice) for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, your Contributions, and to sublicense the licenses granted in this section. Our use and distribution may occur in any media formats and through any media channels.
This license includes our use of your name, company name, and franchise name, as applicable, and any of the trademarks, service marks, trade names, logos, and personal and commercial images you provide.
I've just blocked one spammy russia apologist who is extremely prolific. Although I am disappointed that the community tolerates them. I feel Lemmy has an unresolved Russia apologist problem.
Understood, you are exactly right about that. What you've described filters out third parties. I think most conceptions of ranked choice voting by contrast would give them more of a chance, but granted that's not how it works everywhere.
Low effort shitposts like this that ignore the point of the person you are responding to, that is what makes the internet a bad place.
But Firefox good…?
Yes! They are the most important alternative to major corporate backed browsers, helping sustain a diversified browser ecosystem so that no one company can monopolize the web, and push it toward standards that reinforce their monopoly. Google has tried to lock down the phone, app market, browsing experience that sustains their ad networks, and regularly pushes new standards that de-emphasize things like RSS, and that break ad blocking functionality to sustain their monopoly and invade privacy.
Firefox reverses or mitigates most of those and are explicitly driven by a mission of sustaining an open web with standards that don't bend the web to corporate dominance. Google's cheeky dont be evil mantra was in reference to exactly the things they are doing now, and it's a little too on the nose to their actual behavior so it's no longer a slogan of theirs, cheeky or otherwise.
huh? no one’s asking them to fix firefox, we’re asking that they just ship the latest version.
Huh to your huh? What's significant about the latest version, other than that it includes requested fixes? This is 12 of one, a dozen of the other.
Or should I be looking somewhere other than F-Droid for Android Firefox?
FFUpdater, on F-Droid, manages updates for Firefox and other browsers. I counted nine variations of Firefox or forks of Firefox. As well as eight variations of Chromium based browsers that aren't Chrome. So that's 17 options.
That means that until and unless a 3rd party candidate manages to completely overshadow one of the major political parties, which is effectively never going to happen,
It could happen sometimes, although it's admittedly rare. Maine has an independent senator, Nebraska has an independent senator who's running a strikingly close race against the Republican. In Alaska a couple of years ago the same thing happened although the independent didn't win. I think Jesse Ventura was an independent in Minnesota. But they are one-off cases and not a systematically viable across the whole system.
but for me all the downballot third party candidates are eliminated in the primaries.
What do you mean? A primary would be where Democrats narrow their choices to one nominee, and Republicans do, and third parties do and so on. You seem to be suggesting that primaries filter out third party candidates? Maybe I'm just missing something but my understanding would be that a primary would just be a way that a third party chooses a single nominee, same as the first two parties.
view more:
next ›