I have a few relatives who seem incapable of understanding that miraculously high-definition photos from the 1800s containing never-before-seen imagery of lumberjacks posing with 12ft. tall sasquatches could possibly be inauthentic. .
A British software firm, Threads Software Limited, has given Meta a 30-day ultimatum to cease using the name “Threads” in the UK, citing ownership of the trademark.
So it’s just a threat with no actual value or feasible legal repercussions?
As long as it’s not run by corporations there’s no problem. This is the big advantage of the fediverse where it’s not a single site run for profit, but a whole bunch of servers operated by individuals largely running on donations. We can see how the fediverse is already refusing to federate with threads.
As long as it’s not run by corporations there’s no problem.
Just because the fediverse doesn’t have sponsorships doesn’t mean corporations aren’t interested in poisoning the well. Anyone could be a bad actor. Heck, it could be anyone. I could be a corporate shill and you’d never know.
Wikipedia runs on donations. Does that mean that outside entities aren’t interested in biased editing?
The nature of the network makes it much more difficult for corporations to subvert the network, and the incentive structures are also different. The question isn’t one of interest, but one of structure. It’s much harder for corporations to bias a distributed network that’s not run for profit than platforms they own and manipulate themselves. And of course there are lots of instances of biased editing on wikipedia, but there’s no comparison compared to corporate platforms.
I’m not convinced. You’ve made several claims, and maybe it’s obvious to you as to why it’s hard for corporations to infect the fediverse, but not to me. I’m probably too smooth brained to see it.
Here is Phil Jamesson using the behaviour of Reddit and the upvote system to get to the top of /r/videos:
What is stopping the marketing team of a corporation to influence the fediverse using similar and more advanced techniques? Lemmy uses an upvote system. Why can’t it be abused like Reddit’s system?
I’ve already seen several examples of small scale brigading. I can’t mention examples because it would immediately make this post another target.
For a person making $30,000 a year, a $1,000 fine could mean very significant impacts on their daily life.
For a person making $30,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000 fine may mean they can’t afford an extra Ferrari.
For a person “making” $30,000,000,000 a year, a $1,000,000,000 fine may mean they can’t… Buy another island? You still have $29,000,000,000 that you can do who knows what with. This is the entire GDP of some countries. I also don’t know if this one is a realistic example.
Anyway, proportional is nice, but really you need a progressive system to really match the weight of punishments, as far as impacting your daily life or happiness.
technology
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.