cabbage

The comments on the post also aren't from Mozilla.social. It's not like they would have been happy to see Mozilla as a successful actor on the Fediverse either.

The trolls in the comment section at least hints at the fact that creating a more positive and constructive online space proved more difficult than they imagined.

I was curious, and joined the queue for the closed beta a long time ago. Never heard back. They explored something new in closed channels, decided not to go for it, backed out. I don't really think they need to justify the decision.

Running a social media is a huge effort, and there's a lot of trolls out there actively targeting Mozilla. I imagine it's just more trouble than it's worth.

Just read it for the first time now.

Wow.

Thanks for the recommendation!

The organisation that happily cooperated with fascism in Italy you mean?

The child raping one?

Yeah, it's not what he's saying. But the formulation - sending a child away from the womb of it's mother" - is fundamentally fucked up because it completely removes the mother from the equation. It doesn't even bother to explicitly deprive her of the control over her body - it simply doesn't recognise her existence at all.

I think, more than anything, that's why this line of talking is fucked up. It kind of assumes totalitarianism where no matter what, it's at least not the choice of the individual women/owners of the wombs.

What moderate Catholics will use as a defence is, I guess, the use of the word "child". No reasonable person would consider a lump of 30 cells a "child". But we all know the pope thinks it's a child as soon as the sperm hits the egg, so fuck that as well.

I'm this formulation it sounds like he's talking about government mandated abortion - it's like it's happening against the will of the owner of the womb.

Clearly that's not what he's talking about, but in a narrow charitable interpretation, he would be correct that the government has no fucking business controlling whatever is going on inside women's wombs.

The official story is that Meta is worried about being sued by people suddenly seeing their content pushed to some random website without their consent if it's enabled by default, so they won't risk enabling it by default. At least not before the fediverse is huge enough that everything you post going everywhere on the internet is the expected behaviour.

Fair enough really. I wouldn't want to be sued for that either, and they obviously cannot expect Congress to understand.. anything.

Love the sound of it! Are you making these on commission or just as a hobby?

I can imagine making bows is an incredibly delicate matter - I don't have time to fall into the rabbit hole of the history of bowed instruments right now, but I can feel myself slipping!

Judging character and identifying psychopaths are two wildly different skill sets, though arguably one depends on the other.

I'm slowly getting better (more experienced) at identifying psychopaths and narcissists, but holy shit it can be difficult.

That's beautiful!

Will you make a bow as well? Would it be possible to get a presentation of what it sounds like?

They define decentralisation as an even distribution of users? Or did I get that wrong skimming the paper?

This seems arbitrary. Mastodon is a decentralised network, no matter how big Mastodon.social is. Lemmy is equally decentralised, even though there's a dominant actor.

The other hubs in the network don't revolve around mastodon.social/lemmy.world. they connect to each other bilaterally - if the central hubs disappeared over night it wouldn't affect them all that much.

I think the notion that decentralised networks can't have hubs of varying sizes is plain wrong, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized means.

I think they find themselves in a position they didn't really ask for by being so huge that they're suddenly defining a lot of things. With that many users depending on your product, change necessarily becomes slower and you have to test things to a whole different level before implementing anything. I kind of see why it can be tricky to make technical changes to their ActivityPub implementation at this point, especially as people are yelling left and right for different and often contradicting features.

Sure, it has some negative consequences, but Mastodon's success is still only a good thing, and I don't think there's any good reason at all to expect bad intent from any of it's developers.

In other news, I'm getting really tired of all the shit they're receiving.