And a companion piece: Can we please stop arguing about whether Bluesky is decentralized?https://privacy.thenexus.today/can-we-please-stop-arguing-about-whether-bluesky-is-decentralized/"People who saw Bluesky as centralized nine months ago still see Bluesky as centralized. People who saw Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing) nine months ago still see Bluesky as decentralized (or decentralizing). Nobody's changing their minds in response to new information. It's basically the same discussions rehashed again and again. One thing that's been really striking to me in this latest iteration of this interminable discourse is that so many people in the Fediverse present the fact that 99.99% of Bluesky users are still using infrastructrure run by Bluesky PBC as if it's a gotcha that people advocating for Bluesky and the ATmosphere aren't aware of. No, actually, ATmosphere developers I talk to are very very aware of these limitations. They just prefer to invest their time and energy in working to improve the situation rather than arguing about the semantics of "decentralization." That sure seems like a good approach to me.So can we please stop arguing about this already?" #bluesky #mastodon #fediverse

No other community deserves whatever is happening more than the research community that brought this on us. What you unleashed coming back to eat its own. "We note that in the extreme case where an LLM might be used to produce an entire piece of research, we still require a human author for accountability."What's the point of submitting papers or singing up as a reviewer at these conferences? Why don't we just have LLM generated "papers" be met with LLM generated "reviews" and call it a day?

Having run into a few more examples of this with different ActivityPub software, I think there are a couple of distinct things to considerthe plumbing of communicating between two connecting networks or sites: via a shared protocol ("federation", if it's ActivityPub), via a connector that speaks both protocols (a bridge or hub), via a client, or by a low-tech method like cut-and-paste or export/importmapping the semantics and presentation of content across somewhat-0compatble software. With ActivityPub, the standard and agreed-on FEPs provide some basis for this; so do Lexiscons for AT Protocol -- but they don't actually fully solve the problem. When you're mapping across protocols, you don't even have that.So techniques for cross-protocol mapping are more general, and can also apply to the single-protocol case (and potentially be specialized to take advantage of protocol-specific information). But protocol-specific work doesn't generalize to cross-protocol situations. @laurenshof @snarfed.org @mackuba @quillmatiq

Jon-Pincus hey check out that topic loading from within this NodeBB cc admin@discussions.thenexus.today

Hmm now that you mention it, now's good time to back up my Mastodon profiles too!@glyph @liquidparasyte @aeva

Blacksky has been hosting their own relay for several months now, it really isn’t that expensive. And they’re developing their own AppView. They’ve spent a lot of time investigating and building stuff on the AT Protocol, and clearly don’t think it’s madness to use it as a base - in fact one of Rudy’s early posts talked about why he saw it as a better match for his community-focused goals than ActivityPub.@frumble @mastodonmigration

@clarinette unfortunately the majority of US policymakers are in the "censorship good" camp at this point, so I'm not sure how helpful the article's framing that they need to "take heed" is.

@quillmatiq must have been a day that ends in Y

Yeah totally agree. And Friendica / Hubzilla's multi-protocol approach is the future as well as the past!@quillmatiq @gabboman

Yep. People running fedi instances, just like people running Bluesky, have to decide whether they want to take that risk -- and how much geoblocking decreases the risk.The tradeoffs may well be somewhat different here but it's still very messy, especially for fedi instances either based in the US or with financial ties here (like Mastodon's 501(c)(3)). Bluesky's high-profile, so they might be a more tempting target; then again they fedi isntances have a lot less resources to fund a legal defense, so maybe we're more tempting targets? There's no way to know at this point.@jsit @Gargron

@squirrel you're right, and in fact it did it that way even though there was a CW on this post for the Mastodon audience. It's a good example of it not really being what I wanted. Admittedly, my bad, I should have taken Lemmy's behavior into account and crafted a first line that would also work well as a title!

it's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it. the fireproof undergarments industry is critical infrastructure!@thegibson a

And a good attempt it is! One of the annoying (or funny depending on how you look at it) things about Bluesky's badly-crafted ToS is that they didn't leverage their "second-mover advantage" by learning from the Mastodon ToS fiasco and its aftermath, including your work.I'm also hopeful that Mastodon gGmbH's work with EFF et al will provide some useful templates. Still, these are all just starting points. @neil @lrhodes @mastodonmigration @raphaelmorgan

Not sure of the details of the specific campaign, but in general it's very valuable to be able to search what the overall discussion is on topics related to your campaign (or, just if you want to use Mastodon in a way that's similar to how most people use Twitter). Activism isn't just broadcasting!Hashtag-specific relays are useful for some use cases but typically aren't enough for this -- you can't even see who's talking about your campaign name or organization or the issue you're concerned about.@FediTips @julian

Yep. It's especially important if you want to make it more likely that people will see the post on social media. I often just use photos I've taken or screenshots that relate to the point of the article.Agreed though that it takes some time and that it's perfectly legitimate not to include an image!@quinn @catileptic @lrhodes

Cool. A rare moment of consensus!OK that's enough consensus, now back go arguing. In this thread I shall ... (1/275)@quillmatiq @julian @UlrikeHahn

@Retreival9096 apparently not!