whatsapp for family, because that’s where family is.

nobody uses facebook to connect with family, they use facebook to connect with people from high school they haven’t seen in 15 years and don’t care enough about to actually keep in touch.

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.

op mentioned the DSA…

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?

If you are talking about something like openauth (where you sign into some random website using your Google account) yes, but your base identity is still tied to Google. So if Google goes down, you lose your google account, and you also lose your account at every other website you logged in to using your google account.

Yeah, essentially that. The back-up plan in case your instance goes down is a separate issue, my main plan is just that users shouldn’t need a new account for each fediverse application they want to try, considering one account is already able to make any kind of post.

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.

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”

It would only be mediated through more complex applications. We’d have open source apps like thunderbird for email, still, but most applications would be written by large companies who can afford that kind of ground-up software development.

All walled gardens, none of the democratization we’ve come to know. None of those tiny websites. No independent blogs except on closed services like substack and medium. No independent forums, just one central service that houses all of them… IE reddit. Maybe social media is even more centralized than it is now; maybe nobody manages to get a network monopoly in this world, and some communication standard pops up, a less good version of the fediverse, so I don’t need five fucking apps, but the corporations still find a way to dominate that world.

Most importantly… The hyperlink is kind of dead. I can no longer click on an Associated Press article without an Associated Press app, or an app that knows how to read associated press apps. Maybe my RSS app has a feature like that built in, but if it does, it’s bordering on browser territory. The same holds true for buying; I can’t share a link to a niche brand’s website because it doesn’t have one, and you definitely don’t have their app installed, so clothes need to be on amazon or nordstrom or not exist.

The fact that most people can’t just click on a link to see what it is means that there are fewer references between some things and other things, the web is less connected.

This also ruins search. We can search Wikipedia, but we can’t search the whole internet, because the internet doesn’t have a unified format of references by which pagerank can operate, there are no websites to crawl, and the results you find each require you to download an app to interact with.

What does all of this mean? … well, it really means that somebody would have eventually seen the need for a browser and invented it.

I feel like he totally misunderstood the concept of a Palestinian “right of return.” They’re not asking for a right to return to a future Palestinian state, that isn’t a controversial thing, they would obviously be in control of their own immigration policy. They want a right for millions of Palestinians to “return” to Israel.

Israelis view this not only as an unacceptable danger, but as a move that would end Israeli democracy; an instant majority of Muslim voters, many of whom were raised to believe that Israeli civilians should not be allowed to live, would turn Israel into, you know, the rest of the Middle East. Ban alcohol, ban homosexuality, ban apostasy, ban building synagogues or churches, do everything else every other Muslim-majority country does.

This was one of the major sticking points at Camp David. And this guy just totally missed it.

There’s got to be a way to remove Hamas without killing everyone in Gaza. I hope the international community can come together to find a way. I definitely wouldn’t leave it to Israel lol.

Israel is going to try its best. Nobody else is going to touch this with a ten foot pole. Most of the international community isn’t even willing to condemn Hamas, let alone go in there and get rid of them. Israel literally calls them up in the buildings they’re going to bomb and says “please evacuate this building by this time!” You can’t make that shit up.

If Egypt or the UN wants to take care of Gaza after the war, and actually make sure they don’t get weapons, and actually de-radicalize them (current schools in Gaza are not great at deradicalization), you name it, I’m sure Israel would be on board with that. They didn’t blockade Gaza for fun, blockades are expensive. But burying the dead from the constant attacks of a Hamas with infinite weaponry is fucking worse.

If Israel stopped fighting tomorrow, what do you think would happen?

Would it get its civilian hostages back?

Or would Hamas just set up another invasion and kill more civilians?