chiisana

Stop addressing them as “normies” would be a great start.

Can’t speak for rest of the Fediverse as I’m not super active on microblogging anymore, but at least here on Lemmy, there is such a strong “in” culture and quirky skewed perception of the world, and often times come off as actively hostile against those that do not share the same quirky skewed world view. The anti-AI, anti-corporate, would rather shoot myself in the foot if it’s not FOSS, etc kind of views, with their own strong vocal proponents, comes off as unwelcoming. People are addicted to socials because of the positivity they can get, not the negative sentiments that’s often echo’ed.

Amongst those that doesn’t share the kind of view, you’d already be looking at an extreme small minority that might be willing to give the platform a try, but as long as the skewed perception of the world dominates the discussions, you can expect them to go back to main stream centralized platforms where they can get more main stream view points based discussions.

Wololo wololo

Technically, the words are adopted from Chinese (in this case both Traditional and Simplified are the same and have not diverged yet); but same meaning and reasoning, just different pronunciation.

Emojis used zero width joiner to combine multiple single code point emoji to a single combined emoji.

⛥ + ZWJ + ⬠ could form the combined character, and be rendered as desired.

It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.

Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.

Looks like a case where poorly sourced article getting removed, with invitation to repost with a more reputable source… so do so with a better source. Or is the underlying article itself leaning too much towards propaganda that there is no more reputable source? and if that is the case, then is it really !news worthy?

Can you elaborate further? If the intention is to obscure the information by federating anonymous information outwards, then no third party instance owners can observe the true usernames for vote manipulation from the same user across instances. If more instances deploy this kind of poisonous behaviour across the fediverse, then it becomes untenable for instance owners and community moderator to protect themselves, which in turn hurts the fediverse as a whole.

Edit: if you mean the vote percentage thing, that’s utterly useless. Vote amplification works both ways, a bot user doesn’t have to vote just down or just up. So knowing the percentage of the anonymous user’s previous behavior doesn’t support identifying vote manipulation. An alleged abuser can easily create thousands of account and sample random % of account to mass drive sentiment without having them all appear with similar percentages.

I’ve seen posts being downvoted by user@instancea, user@instanceb, username@instancec etc. this will make tracking that kind of abuse much more difficult.

The code check needs to have some time value associated with it. I taped the link via app, which loaded it in an in-app browser. After getting by the code challenge, I have to back out from the in-app browser to receive the message. Upon returning, the site sends a new code invalidating the old one, which prevents me from logging in. Codes should be valid for X minutes, such that users can fumble around their apps.

There’s also the problem that sadly Lemmy is filled with vocal users with skewed view of the world, and they tend to be extreme polarizing. The “if you’re not one of us, who firmly believes the world should work a certain way, and if you’re not willing to shoot yourself in the foot with a shotgun to prove it as a point, then you’re one of them; you should get the eff off of Lemmy and crawl back to Reddit” kind of way. They’re so scared of losing that pedestal that they’re going to go out of their way to alienate anyone who doesn’t drink their koolaid and push them off the platform so they can remain dominant. Sadly, these people also never really learned much of the real world, so those that are more experienced / educated gets pushed off the platform, and we end up with a bunch of weird superstonk culty kind of vibe everywhere.

I find myself more and more just make a comment and don’t look back. It’s quite literally futile and pointless trying to expect any discussion of any actual sustenance. You wonder why it’s just shitposting… well this is why.

It is probably best to think nothing on Lemmy is private. Any instance with at least one user subscribed to a community will receive updates (messages and votes) on the community. Instance admin can go into the database to see any private message between any user on that instance.

Their grievances with the Lemmy dev team is pretty universal. I can’t wait for Sublinks to become the mature release.

For projects, where they have their community presence also speaks to their ideology. Those projects’ communities chose to move off of Reddit, and be on Lemmy; those projects’ communities chose the instance they’re on.

One may plea ignorance in the early days of Lemmy, that they’re misguided by the instance description; but now a year later after all the drama, their decision to remain there will start to influence who will be able to interact with their community.

I have no sympathy for communities that chose to remain on CSAM infested instances that got defederated, and I will have no sympathy for project communities that continues to associate with ideologies by the ml admins.

Rather !announcements@lemmy.openmw.org, !general@lemmy.openmw.org, !bugs@lemmy.openmw.org, … etc.

So much more flexibility for organizations to build structured communities!

Fortunately, you’d be very hard pressed to find bandwidth pricing from 18 years ago.

The point is the claimed issue is really a non issue, and there are much more effective ways to stress websites without needing the intermediary of fediverse.

AWS charges $0.09/GB. Even assuming zero caching and always dynamically requested content, you’d need 100x this “attack” to rack up $1 in bandwidth fees. There are way faster ways to rack up bandwidth fees. I remember the days where I paid $1/GB of egress on overage, and even then, this 100MB would’ve only set me back $0.15 at worst.

Also worth noting that those who’d host on AWS isn’t going to blink at $1 in bandwidth fees; they’d be hosting else where that offers cheaper egress (I.e. billed by megabits or some generous fixed allocation); those that are more sane would be serving behind CDNs that’d be even cheaper.

This is a non-issue written by someone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about, likely intended to drum up traffic to their site.

If you’ve skimmed over the original publication, it is actually worse: it is a non problem. Other users have pointed out already: ~100MB served over 5 minutes period is quite literally nothing for even one small VPS serving the content independently, let alone a site with CloudFlare in front like they claim to have.

Or 4) Ignore noise and do nothing; this is a case of user talking about things they don’t understand at best, or a blog intentionally misleading others to drum up traffic for themselves at worst. This is literally not a problem. Serving that kind of traffic can be done on a single server without any CDN and they’ve got a CDN already.

I think this might work, I haven’t done it for too long to know for certain if two same plain text encrypted with two same public key would yield two identical encrypted blobs.

I’ve self replied another possible implementation, that I’m pretty proud of figuring out literally 1AM. If you have time, please do give it a glance and see if you can spot any weakness.

Aha! Something just clicked — been thinking continuously since before the original reply. The answer is … more signing and maybe even more keys!

A message would be signed multiple times.

If Bob wants to send Alice “Hello, how are you?” the plain text would be signed with Bob’s general private key that could be verified with Bob’s general public key. This would allow Alice to forward this message to anyone while they could still verify it did indeed came from Bob.

The plain text and signature is then encrypted with one of Alice’s public keys, so only Alice could decrypt it to see the message and signature. This may be a thread specific key pair for Alice so they’re not re-using same keys between different threads.

The encrypted message is then again signed by Bob, using one of Bob’s private key, so that Alice can know the encrypted message has not been altered. This here could also be the thread specific key as noted above.

If Alice were to report Bob, Alice will need to include both the plaintext and the internal signature. This way the internally signed message could be reviewed if the plaintext and signature were forwarded to moderation for review by Charlie (just need to verify the signature against plaintext with Bob’s public key), while the exchange should be secure to only Alice and Bob.

Et voila!