well I said “would.” It’s not a moral issue, it’s just confusing that people find this compelling. It doesn’t quite seem like a collaborative artistic experience. It seems more like just bad tech.
Hi all. I’m Dan. You can message me on Matrix @danhakimi:matrix.org, or follow me on Mastodon at @danhakimi.
You might want to check out my men’s style blog, The Second Button, and the associated instagram account
well I said “would.” It’s not a moral issue, it’s just confusing that people find this compelling. It doesn’t quite seem like a collaborative artistic experience. It seems more like just bad tech.
I don’t understand why this would exist over noscript + using the websites you actually want to use. If you want to spend time on minimal websites, there’s no reason you can’t use html and http to do it.
it looks like this was a college student’s weekend hacking project and some people took it way too seriously and now have this social idea about how intentionally inferior tech is going to revolutionize… devolutionize? the internet. This is not snapchat. This is cave painting.
I’m not saying “yes, you currently can do this with the activitypub protocol as it is,” I’m saying this feature could be added to activitypub, and I’ve made specific references to protocols like POP and IMAP that handle logging into email servers from various client applications. I’m not going to code it myself, I’m an attorney, but I do know enough about computer science to know that there is no computabilty issue with my proposal, and that you dislike it primarily because you don’t currently have an idea for implementing it, which is not my concern at all.
What does that mean? When you post, who’s server’s outbox do you post from? Inboxes and outboxes by server are a central part of the standard.
The server my account is stored on.
or any other, I don’t give a shit, I’m not sure why this would make a difference, but that seems like the obvious answer to me.
You can copy over a user, and make another similar account (like pixelfed), or you can do stuff on that server from another federated server, but at the end of the day you’re not on the same account on different servers.
I don’t know why the current pixelfed app needs to make a separate account.
I gather it finds that solution most convenient, as it means the fewest interactions with the Mastodon server, and there’s currently no straightforward for the current pixelfed app to establish a secure long-term session with a non-pixelfed server. I understand that it currently does make a separate account.
I don’t understand why it is inconceivable for the activitypub protocol to support such communication. eMail has multiple standards that let me log into Thunderbird from non-Thunderbird email servers.
Sure. It’d be a pretty huge departure, though. To a weird degree, like Coca-Cola leaving the beverage business becoming a tire company.
If you wanted to make a new protocol, you could go beyond federation and have a fully decentralised system where everything happens on arbitrarily many servers in parallel, but that would be a lot of work and probably data-heavy before any users walk through the door.
I feel like you’re describing something I’m not calling for. I’m not calling for accounts to be mirrored to multiple servers. I’m calling for a system where client applications can access different servers without copying accounts to a more familiar server.
If you had some centralised way to handle accounts it wouldn’t be federated anymore.
So why can’t you have some federated way to handle accounts?
but either way it wouldn’t be ActivityPub-complient.
Unless you changed activitypub, right?
OPs suggestion that you can just move between instances with the same account isn’t how the fediverse works.
I’m OP.
I’m not sure why you’re speaking in the present tense about a suggestion I am making for the future.
alright, well that’s not great, but my point is more that we could update the protocol to allow this to be done securely and conveniently.
You can log into a pixelfed app on android with a mastodon account. Why can’t you log into a pixelfed web frontend with a mastodon account? What law of physics makes that impossible?
couldn’t your instance just serve your identity to other instances?
I don’t think the fediverse needs more platform alternatives.
What I really think we need is a way for people to use one fediverse account to log into different interfaces, so people can try out a new app / interface without starting a new account. Many apps can do this, but web apps generally cannot, they’re generally tied to an instance.
well, yeah, because it’s private messaging, it requires encryption and things like that. Really, fediverse instances should ideally incorporate matrix chat in some way or another, but that’s not exactly trivial.
oh man, that’s not pretty enough to start using as an alternative to, like, partiful (oh, yeah, I totally want to give my phone number to some random fucking website to go to a party) or wedding registry sites… but those don’t really need to be federated, huh?
I don’t believe that’s what OP intended.
I am assuming OP once heard the name “Sisyphus” and made a strange assumption about what he thought it meant and how he thought it was spelled.
edit: oh, I’m replying to OP… that explains why it doesn’t make any sense…
what would that have to do with irritation from aluminum-based deodorant? Is he saying that “sissies” - “fus” (???) are complainers? That’s a new one, to me, I thought the term was mostly just used to describe men who were perceived as feminine in some stupid way… unless OP is trying to suggest that complaining is femme…
what exactly does OP think he meant by “sissyfus”
how does qwant compare to Google and DDG in terms of the quality of search results?
Big companies have enough money to develop and maintain dedicated applications for multiple platforms. Small and medium-sized services might be able to get one platform going, but they’d be lucky if they had any money left for marketing, or for developing new features, and would eventually either need to grow or accept obsolescence.
And again, I’m not going to develop a web application for my personal blog, and nobody’s going to download it; I would need to use a centralized service.
wait, is “buddy” gendered?
I like to mix it up. but language is context dependent. “buddy” is a go-to of mine, and feels entirely gender neutral.
“my people” is good for plural.
“friend” is good as long as you have the right rhythm with it. Like, you know, in the second person, like “hello, friend.”
“bro” obviously doesn’t work, but I have casually referred to trans friends as “broham” and they didn’t seem to mind. I don’t do it often, but sometimes mixing in a good bro pun is more fun that way… go a little over the top, call somebody brobrahk brobrahma, nobody’s going to be thinking that you’re implying gender, it’s an equally ridiculous term to call anybody by. Similarly, although context dependent, there are implicitly feminine words you can use, although some of them can be degrading in the wrong context. “Gurl,” “bitch,” and “slut” can work, as long as it’s ridiculous enough in context not to be taken seriously. I’m a guy, I’ve had friends call me these. “Gurl” might not be the best for a nonbinary friend or a trans man friend, so be careful with it.
I don’t know, I only have a few nonbinary friends, I guess, and I mostly refer to most of them by their names.