I imagine ability to fork, comment, open an issue or a merge (pull) request, do a code review etc from an account on one instance to a project on another. That would enable true decentralisation of software development. It was one of the original promises of Git, but was lost with the emergence of GitHub. With such federated network of forges each developer, or a group working on a project, could run their own server and collaborate with anyone else, without registering accounts on hundreds of services. I'd love that.
15
Leave big tech behind! How to replace Amazon, Google, X, Meta, Apple – and more
(www.theguardian.com)
The project is very interesting. After quickly browsing their website I understand that it's a kind of a framework to build fediverse apps. It's implemented in Elixir programming language and uses Postgres as a database. Looks like they are putting a lot is emphasis on community and cooperative aspects.
You are talking about civilizations, but it seems to me that a more appropriate word would be "empires", which in a sense is an antithesis of "civilization". Most people around the world don't have imperial aspirations, and yet they do live in civilized societies. That extends to most governments, today and historically. Perhaps peaceful societies leave less footprint. Empires need a lot of propaganda to justify their antisocial actions - things like monuments, colossal architecture, anthems, heroic poems. Naturally their spectacular violence attracts more of our attention. But I don't think imperialism was ever a norm.
Cooperation was achieved at a gun point. There is no solidarity even in communist regimes.
That's an assertion without any merit. Especially in oppressive regimes solidarity is what keeps society together. I understand that you are writing from USA, so I don't blame you for this dark and cynical worldview. My impression from a safe distance is that breaking of basic and natural solidarity and voluntary cooperation is an intentional effort of a tiny class of imperialists in your country. They want you cynical, hopeless and alienated. Don't give up the hope!
How do you know it's "due to slavery and violence" rather then "despite slavery and violence"? It seems more likely to me that civilisation is rooted in cooperation and solidarity, while slavery and violence is a cancer that grows on top of it, and hurts almost everyone involved.
Yeah, we will have much success converting people from WhatsApp and shit by telling them to run their own servers /s. If a non technical friend asks me what to use instead and I'll advise them to use Matrix, you can be sure they'll go to app store, install Element and register at matrix.org. So I do want to know if it's operated by Mossad before I send my friends there.
I'm absolutely for free software, but this statement is very simplistic. Do "we" control software running on matrix.org, where most users have accounts? Or do "we" control what binaries of Element are being deployed to App Store or Play Store? Just because something has a free software licence, doesn't mean it's not important who the maintainers and major developers are. One of the important features of free software is transparency, which allow us as community to learn and discuss who and how develops the software. I'm not saying Matrix is bad. I'm still using it. I just want to know more about it and who's running the show, and hear other peoples opinions and arguments.
The sentence is a bit vague, but I would read it differently. I think they mean "50% of queries made in France", kind of like 50% market share. That would be very ambitious though.
What's a better alternative? Which other platforms are you referring to? How do they compare in terms of features and adoption? From all the decentralised, e2e encrypted platforms I tried, matrix is the only one more or less accessible for normies.
That wouldn't apply to conversations you have within a group that hosts their own server, would it? Like within a family or a club.
view more: next ›
Proton is not a social medium. As to "how high", the lawmakers have to decide on that, hopefully after some research and public consultations. It's not an unprecedented problem.
Another criterion might be revenue. If a company monetises users attention and makes above certain amount, put extra moderation requirements on them.