duringoverflow

This will greatly enhance the intelligence of future generations and make education accessible to almost everyone on earth at a similar high level.

I don't think that accessibility in AI somehow correlates with the intelligence of the subjects using it. It can actually work in the completely opposite way where people blindly trust it or people get used to using it in a degree that they're unable to do anything without the help from the technology. Like people who are unable to navigate 2 blocks from their house if they don't use google maps navigation even though they do the same route every day.

If large companies and influential people move to Mastodon [...] and no ads.

large companies and influential people are in the commercial platforms because of the ads. There is literally no reason for them to move in a place without ads.

while I would say I belong to the dark-theme cult, there are some applications/websites that I cannot get used to them in dark mode. Like github or slack for example in which everything else than they light theme looks strange in my eyes.

meta (threads) will not support fediverse already. They said they will do in some later version. So for the completely practical part, you don't need to do anything right now.

in this case we don't talk about users who want to block users of another instance. The problem is not the users of meta. The problem is meta itself and all the problems it will bring to the federated network. Whoever cannot see that their intentions are not to promote federated networks but to exploit and extinguish them, is just naive.

I think it would be possible to keep a central database containing only the information which username has already been registered within the Fediverse - a bit like domain registrars. When a new user joins, the operators of an instance could look up whether the desired username is already occupied on another instance. This would certainly mean losing some autonomy, since the instances would no longer have sovereignty over available usernames. But I think it would be beneficial overall if usernames were only assigned once within the Fediverse.

I don't think this is realistic at all. It breaks the current philosophy of the fediverse where each instance can be both autonomous and federated. What would happen if for example an instance wanted to federate after they already had a couple accounts. Would they need to delete these users because the username exists? This is the reason that the second part (after the "@") exists.

Also look at the email. Ofcourse it is possible to have the same name with users in other email services. It would be very weird not to be allowed to get the [email protected] because the [email protected] already exists.

What you are suggesting introduces and requires a central authority that would be responsible for that, but this again, breaks the philosophy of the fediverse itself.

meta is not here to promote open networks. They will do more harm than good. If you want to learn more about how google achieved it with the XMPP you can read the story here https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html written by one of the core developers.

this seems so messed up. I like kbin, don't get me wrong, but I consider this to be a bug, not a feature. When you have upvotes and downvotes one next to the other, you (a user) expect these 2 to do the exactly opposite action. Not one of them just add something in your favourites while the other starts negating another user's karma.

you missed the point where the open source devs were in a constant race to adapt to all the google-"innovations" and actually troubleshoot on them which ends up demotivating

first of all I'd like to say that i'm very concerned about my online privacy. However what you ask is, with all due respect, delusional.
The only way to prevent this is by moving in closed gate environment where you know the participants. It is impossible to stop all the scrappers or the AIs by posting #nobots. This game is already over and you just consume your mental energy fighting a lost war.

The moment you are posting something online publicly it will be scrapped by unlimited companies. Consider it a fact. Even if lets say the biggest of companies due to public relations reasons, respect such tag, there are unlimited other smaller companies/entities/whatever that will give no fuck at all. If they scrap it, then they can even sell it to the larger companies and your data is again there. It is unpreventable. It is like going in from of other people and telling them "don't look, look away". Ok so what, they have already looked and they look again when you turn away.

because by collecting votes and favorites one can create a full spectrum profile of a user. However, if I decide to write a couple of sentences publicly I already know that it will be scrapped by unlimited companies and I agree that we have to just accept that it will be happening.

so you think that 2 governments would had started spending millions if 5 migrants had somehow been trapped in the seabed of the Mediterranean?