A server can decide what servers it’s connected to. It can have a blacklist of blocked instances - or even go further and have a whitelist of allowed instances, blocking all else.
Such a feature is necessary to deal with issues like spam instances, or instances that host illegal content.
One of the things I like a lot about lemme.ee is that they have blocked very few instances.
Sure, it’s always a step of 10x, but you do have to remember all the prefixes. Or you can only remember the 1000x prefixes - but you also need to remember centi-. Then, nobody says “megagram” - it’s “ton”. So there are quirks to remember.
Well, you can theoretically make a second app-view “instance”, call it “Greenearth” or something, and have different policies than Bluesky on how to verify or select content. But until someone actually does so, it’s not really decentralized. I’m not sure what’s stopping people from doing so, but it’s been a while, so I assume there must be some roadblock.
There’s also the issue of how Blueky itself was depicted as the decentralized network - when it’s more akin to a single instance, instead.
Currently not, because it’s not de-facto decentralized. There would need to be multiple relays, managed by different organizations, AND multiple app views, also managed by different orgs, for me to consider it such.
The non-existence of de facto decentralization indicates that the ecosystem doesn’t actually promote decentralization, even though it technically allows for it.
The platform where bot farms are still effective
Spoken like they’re no longer effective on the other platforms.
Oh, no! Someone’s publishing open models better than our closed ones! How are we going to make profit now? Do something! Quick!!!
How can someone support them in good faith? I’ll focus on China, but here are some reasons:
For starters, I don’t believe that it’s possible to impose on a society from the outside to accept LGBTQ people. For example, making LGBTQ acceptance as a precondition on having good relations with China has literally 0% chance of improving life of LGBTQ people there. It’s more likely to backfire. On the other hand, having good relations, and allowing cultural exchange to happen naturally, can - and I think, over the last few decades before relations soured, has - improved LGBTQ acceptance there.
Also, amongst superpowers, China has a relatively good track record when in comes to using military force. They have had conflicts with neighboring countries, but it’s nothing compared to the wars the US or Russia (and USSR) have fought.
Finally (this one I don’t share, but I think it can be held in good faith), someone might not care about human rights all that much. For example, if you consider government-sponsored murders to be just the same as any other - not better, but also not worse - then even if you include Tienanmen Square and other murders by the government, the murder rate in China is still lower than most of the world.
Is that something new? As in, has WaPo not been willing to go after Meta in a similar manner before?
So, essentially, they wanted to enter the Chinese market so much that they were even willing to comply with the local rules and regulations!
This is such a big secret, we really needed a whistleblower to tell us that!
No, that’s because social media is mostly used for informal communication, not scientific discourse.
I guarantee you that I would not use lemmy any differently if posts were authenticated with private keys than I do now when posts are authenticated by the user instance. And I’m sure most people are the same.
Edit: Also, people can already authenticate the source, by posting a direct link there. Signing wouldn’t really add that much to that.
Sure, but that has little to do with disinformation. Misleading/wrong posts don’t usually spoof the origin - they post the wrong information in their own name. They might lie about the origin of their “information”, sure - but that’s not spoofing.
I don’t understand how this will help deep fake and fake news.
Like, if this post was signed, you would know for sure it was indeed posted by @lily33@lemm.ee, and not by a malicious lemm.ee admin or hacker*. But the signature can’t really guarantee the truthfulness of the content. I could make a signed post that claiming that the Earth is flat - or a deep fake video of NASA’a administrator admitting so.
Maybe I’m missing your point?
(*) unless the hacker hacked me directly
That is why I use just int main(){...} without arguments instead.
The point of it being open is that people can remove any censorship built into it.
The particular AI model this article is talking about is actually openly published for anyone to freely use or modify (fine-tune). There is a barrier in that it requires several hundred gigs of RAM to run, but it is public.
It’s almost sure to be the case, but nobody has managed to prove it yet.
Simply being infinite and non-repeating doesn’t guarantee that all finite sequences will appear. For example, you could have an infinite non-repeating number that doesn’t have any 9s in it. But, as far as numbers go, exceptions like that are very rare, and in almost all (infinite, non-repeating) numbers you’ll have all finite sequences appearing.
Now, if only the article explained how that killing was related to TikTok. The only relevant thing I saw was,
had its roots in a confrontation on social media.
It’s says “social media”, not “TokTok” though.
Well, he didn’t even buy the original (I guess it has spoiled by then), but a DIY replica and a certificate.
Wtf, are kids 10 and 7 not old enough to walk by themselves to the grocery store now?