The generational divide is just one instance of a broader phenomenon—similar divisions exist in adults between our constructed personas for family, work, friends, interest groups, etc.
The generational divide is just one instance of a broader phenomenon—similar divisions exist in adults between our constructed personas for family, work, friends, interest groups, etc.
Or maybe a server that lets you create multiple, “connected” accounts at the same time, together with a client that combines the accounts into one view.
I remember the steady turnover of social media networks leading up to Facebook—the joke was that kids would migrate to a new platform every time their parents joined their current one. I think there’s a kernel of truth there that’s still a potential weak point on Facebook: people want to have distinct, non-overlapping online personas for different social groups (family, work, friends, etc) without the overhead of maintaining multiple accounts. That seems like an avenue a potential fediverse Facebook alternative might exploit.
I haven’t tried it because I’ve read a lot of negative discussions of it—and because (by my understanding) the only reasonable use case would be if there were a large number of users and each user is likely to have copies of the same files but don’t want to expose their files to each other (so you can’t just manually de-dupe).
Am I missing something, or does karma (as a cumulative per-user measure) not play any functional role in Lemmy anyway?
Thanks—I meant “formal” as in “formal grammar”, not that it wasn’t described in the published protocol. As in, there’s nothing in the protocol’s explicit form that distinguishes between this implied meaning and a real extra recipient—so it simplifies the parsing but adds an extra post-parsing step.
Why not a binary flag or something? Is it just to avoid making it a formal part of the protocol?
Does ActivityPub really send copies of all activities to www.w3.org?
I believe that an out-of-the-box lemmy instance will remove deleted content from federated instances automatically.
My point is just that site maintainers can modify the software to do whatever they want, or run software that implements ActivityPub but whose functionality is completely different from that of lemmy.
As another commenter has said, this is likely just a feature of the interface and not a reflection of what other users see.
But you should keep in mind that, due to the nature of federation, your posts are copied to all other instances that are federated with yours—which in theory includes not just lemmy instances but any software implementing the ActivityPub protocol. Whether those instances actually remove posts you’ve marked as deleted is up to their discretion.
the tech community keeps waiting for everyday people to take the baton of self-hosting. They never will—because the effort and cost of maintaining self-hosted services far exceeds the skill and interest of the audience.
The same argument could have been used a century ago to claim that everyday people would never switch from trains to private cars, because the effort and cost of maintaining a car exceeds the skill and interest of most travelers. That may have been true at one point, and may be true again in the future—but it’s contingent on changing circumstances, not a categorical truth.
deleted by creator
A typical use case is to forward a single port to the proxy, then set the proxy to map different subdomains to different machines/ports on your internal network. Anything not explicitly mapped by the reverse proxy isn’t visible externally.
I’m not familiar with every client, but on mine it only hides the domain for users on my own server. (Early email used to work exactly the same—you could send an email addressed to just a username with no tld and it would go to the user with that name on your own server by default.)
It should work the same as email: you can trust it’s them if the user account is hosted on their own site, or their employer’s, or if they link to it from another confirmed source.
This user’s name is displayed in Arabic, although the characters in the URL are Latin.
AFAIK, the only practical thing in the way of having a separate server that just hosts identity accounts for all types of fediverse content (while the content itself is hosted on other servers) is that your host server is responsible for presenting the interface through which you view the rest of the fediverse, and the interfaces are specialized for a particular content type. You could have a server running a variety of fediverse software (mastodon, lemmy, etc.) which automatically generates similar accounts for each user on each service, so users could sign up once and then switch interfaces; but I think the rest of the fediverse would still treat them as separate identities.
Does it need to be accessible via API (e.g. SQL) or just a spreadsheet-style web interface?
What about the usage demographics within each country?
In underdeveloped/exploited countries, internet usage is more likely to be concentrated among the economic elites who formerly benefited from colonialism—so if increasing adoption in those countries just follows the pattern of other internet use, it could have the opposite effect from the one intended.
One under-appreciated aspect of Docker is that it forces you to document all your setup steps in your dockerfile and docker-config files.