👋 We are excited to join @fediforum next week for the first time.
We'd love to exchange ideas with you about
➡️ academics’ mastodon use: drivers and hurdles; it's a small #research project we're currently starting;
➡️ #decentralized #SocialMedia in #academia; our #university #library’s perspective;
➡️ applying #OpenScience principles in our #mastodon #communications
reshared this
Bluesky says it had over 9M users as of September 6, after adding 3M new users in the week or so since Brazil blocked X, and that video support is "coming soon" (Anthony Ha/TechCrunch)
techcrunch.com/2024/09/07/blue…
techmeme.com/240907/p9#a240907…
Israeli settlers vandalise olive trees in West Bank
Israeli travel restrictions and attacks on olive groves meant Palestinian farmers lost approximately 1,200 metric tonnes of olive oil from last year’s harvest.
@palestine
#WestBank
#OliveTrees
![A Palestinian olive farmer checks damages to her olive trees near Salfit in the occupied West Bank [File: Alaa Badarneh/EPA]](https://social.trom.tf/photo/preview/640/15536895 "A Palestinian olive farmer checks damages to her olive trees near Salfit in the occupied West Bank [File: Alaa Badarneh/EPA]")
I know it's annoying to hear me and others keep saying this but: none of these adaptations will matter if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.
FEP-7888 and the Add activity
@thisismissem@hachyderm.io in a post yesterday brought back the idea that better post controls could be achieved if the reply were sent to the target only, and the target then forwards it if applicable.
It reminded me of @trwnh@mastodon.social's w3id.org/fep/7888, which attempts to govern a similar flow where a reply is sent to the context owner (instead of inReplyTo, which I think was Em's intent), and the context owner (and/or originating server) federates out an Add if approved.
Which got me thinking about whether that federated server could actually send out a Remove too!
Let's say a reply is made but later on, a mod decides that it is to be deleted. A Remove would be a way to signal to other instances that the content actually be removed/deleted!
We could even take it one step further; servers will always exist who don't adhere to the philosophy of the context owner approving replies. If they federate their own replies out, the context owner could actually proactively send a Reject and limit the spread of those replies...
Big props to Jeremy Saulnier who wrote and directed Rebel Ridge. Recommend.
The film covers so much of what is wrong with US policing, in an action packed drama movie. It also covers the evil and racism in the system vs the individual. I don't think a cop calls a Black person the N-Word once in the whole movie.
*Civil asset forfeiture
*Cash bail and prison violence
*Why Black folk don't give statements
*The power of sheriffs in small towns
*Violence of the war on drugs
Debbie Goldsmith 🏳️⚧️♾️🇺🇦 reshared this.
Share via
Most C/C++ programs call functions in a C Standard Library (libc) such as fopen.
#Redoxos includes a Rust implementation of the standard C library called relibc. This is how programs such as Git and #Python can run on Redox. relibc has some POSIX compatibility.
Rust programs implicitly or explicitly call functions in the Rust standard library.
Mike Macgirvin 🖥️
in reply to julian • • •Last year, I moved conversations into Collections identified by the context element, and we only accepted Add/Remove activities for collections from Collection->attributedTo. All submissions were made to them and only to them.
We previously sent replies only to the thread originator - a concept for restricted access conversations I came up with about the same time the Diaspora folks did. We kept it for a number of years even though Mastodon didn't support it, but moving conversation threads into a simple collection management operation not only makes sense, it bloody works brilliantly and co-exists with microblogging. It also co-exists with FEP-7888.
silverpill
in reply to Mike Macgirvin 🖥️ • • •infinite love ⴳ
in reply to silverpill • • •silverpill
in reply to infinite love ⴳ • • •>In a constrained conversation, the target->id and the context are identical.
So
target.attributedToandcontext.attributedTowould be identical tooinfinite love ⴳ
in reply to silverpill • • •Mike Macgirvin 🖥️
in reply to infinite love ⴳ • • •I would be happy to consolidate, but I think the chances of some large percentage of the fediverse choking badly on an array for the context element are pretty high. Same reason I don't use an array in an actor 'url' field. It's a few years since I tried this, but 2/3 of the fediverse projects at the time couldn't deal with it and nobody bothered to fix it for years because "Mastodon doesn't do this, so you must be doing something wrong."
Anyway, I'm retired from the fediverse shit-show now. Y'all can do what you want. But please implement comment control. It isn't a "feature" - it's basic online security (except for some freespeech folks who still think everybody with an opinion or a dick has some God-given right to shove it in your face).
The fediverse you save might be your own.
Bill Statler likes this.