makeasnek
Or you could just start using Bitcoin for international trade. No having to trust a specific country to responsibly manage your currency. Send money anywhere instantly with 99.9% uptime, much lower fees than banks/swift/etc, 365 days a year, etc.
Amazing thank you! Would love to see “awards” implemented similar to reddit, would be a great fundraising tool for instances.
If you’re interested in finding stuff in space, there are several volunteer computing projects: Universe@home (mapping black holes and other objects), Einstein@home (finding pulsars), and Asteroids@home (you’re never gonna guess what this one is about). You just install a free program and it uses your computer’s spare processing power in the background, and you can set it to run only when your machine is idle so it doesn’t slow anything down. It’s pretty fun when you get to see your username right next to the discovery in their database! For more volunteer computing projects check out !boinc@sopuli.xyz
Garbage headline. This isn’t “AI” doing this, it’s hiring managers and companies. It’s policy. If I put all my applicants into a Microsoft excel spreadsheet and use the sorting function to sort by race, then only hire ones of of a particular skin tone, is Excel keeping millions of qualified candidates out of the workforce? No, of course not. Neither is AI. Replace “AI” with “company policy” in every one of these articles and you get at what’s actually occurring.
Same reason we don’t need to “regulate AI”. We need to regulate it’s deployment, just like we regulate whatever technology we used for it previously. In other words, we don’t need new rules, we just need enforcement of existing ones. You can’t have a hiring process that discriminatory. What tool you use to arrive at that end doesn’t matter.
Not sure why nobody in the comments is distinguishing between blocking a community on an instance (removing /c/piracy) and defederating instances (saying your users can’t subscribe to otherinstance.com/c/piracy). They are very different things. We should be very skeptical of defederation.
Removing a community because it violates the rules of your instance is A-OK and every instance should do this. Anybody can run an instance, and anybody can set their own rules, that’s the whole idea of federation.
De-federating other instances because you find their content objectionable is less ok. Lemmy is like e-mail. Everybody registers at gmail or office365 or myfavoriteemail.com. Every email host runs their own servers, but they all talk to each other through an open protocol. You would be pissed to find out that gmail just suddenly decided to stop accepting mail from someothermailprovider.com because a bunch of their users are pirates or tankies. Or blocked your favourite email newsletter from reaching your inbox because it had inflammatory political content.
Allowing your users to receive e-mail, or content from subcommunities on other lemmy instances is not a legal risk like hosting the content yourself is (IANAL etc). Same way Gmail is not liable if somebody on some other e-mail server does something illegal by emailing a gmail user. That’s why you can register at torrentwebsite.com and get a user confirmation email successfully delivered to your inbox. Gmail is federated with all other e-mail services without needing to endorse them or accept legal liability for them.
Lemmy’s strength, value, and future comes from being the largest federated space for link-sharing and other forms of communication.
De-federation is bad.
You are right about worsening economic conditions leading to the rise of far right movements. I was more speaking to their digital footprint. If you remember early Facebook, it was nothing like what people use today.
yes, precisely. if normal instances federate with the nazi ones, this won’t be true any longer because their content WILL flood the feeds of many people. this will have disastrous consequences for lemmy as a platform.
If lemmy A is federated w lemmy B (the nazi one), it means:
- Users on Lemmy A can subscribe to communities and users on Lemmy B and vice versa
- Users on Lemmy A can comment on communities on Lemmy B and vice versa
It does not mean:
- Posts from lemmy B show up on Lemmy A (except in the “global” view on main page, which is non-default, and likely won’t show up their either due to massive downvoting). I would imagine, in time, that the global tab actually gets entirely removed since you have a problem where a single lemmy instance can massively inflate their vote count to make their votes the top voted posts across the whole network. You can’t enforce instances to follow the rules on this and you can’t audit their compliance. There are certainly some solutions to this involving blockchain but that’s an aside and those are at least a few years away afaik. 90% of users never do the “non-default” option in whatever app they’re in.
So this flooding the feeds scenario, I just don’t see it. In user-moderated platforms, vocal minorities don’t show up anywhere, they get moderated out basically automatically except in their own little enclaves. There is no scenario in which Lemmy as a federation provides a good platform for them (outside of their own nazi-friendly instance), because Lemmy doesn’t work like other social media works.
Unfortunately this is just ONE of MANY bad internet bills currently up for consideration and with bipartisan support. Help fight all of them at https://badinternetbills.com
Definitely a step in the right direction for the Tor network. If they wanted to take it to the next level, they could use blockchain to enable people to buy “priority” access in some way (Monero, lightning, their own token, whatever). This could subsidize people who host Tor routers, while making sure a free tier was enabled for all users who need it. This could massively increase the size of the Tor network as right now Tor server hosting is just done out of expensive altruism. Bigger network = bigger free tier = faster Tor for everybody.