cakeistheanswer

It's a well founded worry.

Activitypub represents the lowest dev entry costs and as a bonus it comes with an audience. If Facebook is standing up a cheap competitor just to take advantage the barrier to entry is miniscule.

Given the trouble some users have noted deleting content (erasing also kills your Instagram account), it might also be a play to deprecate a duplicate platform under their control.

Understandable, and yet if nobody contributes upvotes out of the same concern you end up with nothing standing out in your feed to come comment on. Kind of circular.

On the other hand having an upvote actually attached to your (and I actually mean your handle here) name would likely give it credibility in a weird sense. There's much less incentive to blindly upvote if it essentially shows what you saw like a slug trail, but if you're selectively giving oxygen to the best of what you see then that trail is valuable to others who value you. It's a functional change from competing to push things for their own sake.

Im old! I come from an era where there was no such thing as OPSEC as soon as you interact with another party you cant personally name. For every consumer that was the phone company, or literally right out the door. If you transmit (login credentials, personal info, search queries) the expectation is somewhere, someone or something is logging it. Not even maliciously all the time either, sometimes I got to some of this out of boredom. The corporate Internet just kind of acts like a middle man, because that same problem never went away, just siloed into companies.

Until we get to a future like Transmetropolitan where the expectation is your online presence has some dirty laundry (and hopefully leave out the other stuff), all the bits/bytes, not just upvotes, you transmit should have a limited expectation of privacy. This is just the best/latest reminder because every hack is the same problem, only the company has incentive to keep it quiet so it doesn't hit their bottom line.

This is super interesting to me.

I think you're right in that the user base has the same expectations despite a huge change in the model. But it's going to be the same on any server, your circle of trust now has to include your instance owner everywhere on the fediverse.

In general there's no expectation you can delete every email you ever sent either, just your local copies. Most of what you see here is similar with some new attached protocols (votes, markdown etc)

I'm sure we'll see some evolution, but the entire infrastructure is a call back to when a single service wasn't directly linked to a single business, and it shouldn't be treated like one.

In other words I'm not sure the concession isn't the price you pay to not have reddit/twitter in charge. Because any other architecture that had the convenience of having a single point to delete from is also going to be a single point of failure.

Fully expected to be buried since I'm late to the party.

That's really only half of it, there is no real erasure possible when everyone's holding a cached copy. Personally... I kind of like it, I don't hold any value to the words I contribute here as long as they're for everyone.

But everything and everyone is living in concentric glass houses here.

Normally not a comment I'd apply wordy science too, but let's see if I can do better than an upvote. Because this is exactly what I can't let go lately.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/1/013029/pdf

Authorship of paper is 2016, and we're always talking about larger populations than CEOs, so there is going to be 0 scientific rigor that can be applied to any study.

Still given the perspective of social behavior being about the product of advocates/bigots on any platform; where are the good, non rent seeking social media CEOs? The standard bad behavior of social networks is always around the issue of monetization, the first wave of 'well meaning' people have been replaced with a mandate for profit and a limited playbook. The social contagion was taking buyouts, now it's turning screws to users.

Weirdly Zuckerberg looks like a model citizen, he's still playing the growth game.

I think long term someone will come up with something. How hostile the community they arrive to?

Entirely up to how well we remember how it went the last time.

Ahh always nice to revisit my first dose of propaganda.

I would have downloaded a car if I could have.

Oh good, I was wondering when I could expect 'normal' behavior.

Honestly I wonder if the Lemmy client writers are going to be a strictly patronage model. The wefwef.app team has done a crazy good job illustrating what the free minimum is.

The most wonderful part of this, for the unfortunately uncoordinated like me:

scrolling and accidently clicking a random card is now always a random post and not an ad launching a browser window I immediately close and curse.

It's amazing how bad it got for awhile out there.

The idea is to remove profit motive, and distribute the actual costs to the users or admins.

Same way as any enthusiast could have run their own BBS back in the day. The perk now is they're linked together.

I would be shocked if it stays like that forever everywhere, but since the early days there's generally been some way to eat the cost.

Activist judge gets thrown around a lot, but if the shoe fits....

I think this is just the leading edge unless folks are lining up to replace moderators in most communities.

Systems tend to fail slowly, and then all at once.

Most fediverse denizens have noticed how sane and measured the dialogue is, which is entirely a product of the audience who is here right now. But everyone's got a threshold, whether Reddit loses everyone or not isn't relevant if they couldn't be profitable with all of us. There's a death spiral coming, and if there's anything left Reddit will have to functionally change.

Easiest to think of Reddit as a party grinding on too long and starting to get rowdier, and the bouncers just quit.