5 days ago
If you read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you will notice that it guarantees rights to people... not just citizens... to people.
I don't care what your political persuasion is. Rights aren't just for you. They are for everyone.
I don't care what your political persuasion is. Rights aren't just for you. They are for everyone.
@hosh I understand you point of view, but you have to remember that not all of them were slave owners. In fact, half of them were abolitionists, who wanted to end slavery. And the abolitionists weren't stupid. Even though they had to compromise on slavery to get the Constitution ratified, they inserted language into the Constitution that they hoped would be interpreted to apply to all people in the future. Slavery was a worldwide institution at that point, and they did not have the power at that time to stop it. After slavery was abolished and after the Civil Right Act was passed, their vision for a better future was finally be implemented, at least in law. We are still waiting for certain parts of the population to catch up, but at least the law is pretty clear. It is illegal to violate anyone's rights, regardless of the color of their skin.
Think of it this way. Just because your neighbor is a thief, that does not make you a thief. And, likewise, just because some of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that did not mean all of them had slaves. A large percentage of them we very vocal abolitionists.
Think of it this way. Just because your neighbor is a thief, that does not make you a thief. And, likewise, just because some of the Founding Fathers had slaves, that did not mean all of them had slaves. A large percentage of them we very vocal abolitionists.
Personally, I think it is important, especially in this political environment where people's rights are being violated, that we point out that the U.S. Constitution clearly says the U.S. government cannot violate your rights. Regardless of where one wants to draw their moral stance from, U.S. government officials are bound by the Constitution and laws, and nothing else. I could cite various declarations of human rights, but none of that matters. The courts will enforce the U.S. Constitution, not other documents.
5 days ago
Agreeing with both of you - we are speaking of laws (rather than morals) here, and precedent of legal interpretation. It's only that, just as laws can be improved by constitutional ammendments, they may also be degraded, such as by filling the courts with corrupt or illiberal judges and by discovering similar loopholes to those that allowed the constitution to be passed in the first place. I don't think that a system has been invented that cannot be corrupted. Weaknesses can be exploited. The bedrock is shown to be cleft with fissures; so that, before you know it, you find Guantanamo Bay sized gaps. Here in Israel, where there are fewer checks and balances than in the US, the power of the judiciary is under attack. Netanyahu is claiming that the courts are "anti-democratic", and that they should not be permitted to overrule the bills passed by politicians, because their rulings do not respect "the will of the people". Similar backsliding has been taking place in countries all around the world, so that we should see these processes as being very much as the same trend.
6 days ago
Evan Prodromou wrote the following post 6 days agoYes, it is time to move beyond left vs. right, class warfare, and racism & race-based policies.
Build an actual system that is fair for everyone, not just particular groups or tribes. And I am not talking about a utopia. There will always be competing and conflicting interests. But that does not mean the rules of the playing field can't be fair, and that we can't have fair compensation for every stakeholder in an organization or business, and that we can't be compassionate to our fellow human beings.
I've been advocating this for decades now. But most people are so engrained in their "us versus them" mentality that they are unwilling to create a fair system. Most people only want a system that benefits them and their tribe, and aren't really concerned with fairness and rights for all.
We could build a better society, but will we?
5 days ago
Four years ago, it looked like the R's might tear themselves apart, but it didn't happen.
5 days ago
At this point, it is hard to tell what will happen. It is clear that it is no longer "business as usual," as they say.
6 days ago
There has been a lot discussion about whether Bluesky is truly capable of being decentralized or not, especially considering the costs of replicating some of the centralized services that Bluesky offers. That is a valid question that is subject to debate. Technically it can be decentralized, but so far hasn't been... for a variety of reasons.
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
I think that Bluesky and the Fediverse look at things very differently.
When the Fediverse looks at decentralization, they think of servers and platforms that could be run by individuals or small communities. Decentralized to the level of the individual. And the fediverse community seems to be adverse to large instances, as seen by many complaints that certain Mastodon instances are becoming too large.
But Bluesky is looking at the organization level. In other words, could another large organization create another competing Twitter on the AT Protocol? Or could some organization create a Facebook or TikTok equivalent on the AT Protocol? Basically the concept of having the equivalents of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok all being able to talk to one another, all run by different organizations, not individuals.
Basically, how the AT Protocol becomes decentralized is when some organization creates a TikTok equivalent that uses AT Protocol, as an example, and they create their own AT Protocol stack to support it. One billionaire recently offered money to anyone who would build one.
So we are talking about different levels of decentralization here: the organizational level or the individual level.
I don't think these camps will ever agree on what decentralization means since they look at things very differently. Luckily these protocols can be bridged, and some platforms are multi-protocol, which would allow people to choose the level of decentralization they want.
#fediverse #bluesky #activitypub #atproto #atprotocol
5 days ago
Bob Mottram of Libreserver wrote this 
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.
https://epicyon.libreserver.org/users/bob/statuses/114251181576880920 - placing control over communications in the hands of the individual needs to be the longterm goal I think, so whatever we can do to make the tech easier and more accessible and to eliminate the middlemen, the better.
7 days ago
@Jupiter Rowland I've attended before and discussed Hubzilla. This time I have Neuhub and some other projects that I want to highlight.
18 days ago
I've been thinking about how best to fund an open source project. Some people think it should be purely donations. Others think selling related products and services is the best route. There are many funding models out there.
Maybe I should make it capitalism vs. donations.
I give people two choices. Donate money and the funds pay developers to create free code. Or purchase a product or service and a percentage of the proceeds helps fund the open source project, which releases it's code for free. The more money generated, the more code we can release for free.
I'm curious which would raise more money for an open source project. Because to be sustainable, developers and contributors need to be able to pay their bills.
Maybe I should make it capitalism vs. donations.
I give people two choices. Donate money and the funds pay developers to create free code. Or purchase a product or service and a percentage of the proceeds helps fund the open source project, which releases it's code for free. The more money generated, the more code we can release for free.
I'm curious which would raise more money for an open source project. Because to be sustainable, developers and contributors need to be able to pay their bills.
18 days ago
I probably should amend this to:
- Donations.
- Proceeds from selling products and services.
- Volunteer labor.
Because a lot of people contribute time to projects as well, and that is valuable and vital to the success of a project.
- Donations.
- Proceeds from selling products and services.
- Volunteer labor.
Because a lot of people contribute time to projects as well, and that is valuable and vital to the success of a project.
25 days ago
In the end, I think the social web will be multi-protocol. Even though each protocol shares basic communications features, they are all trying to solve different problems.
ActivityPub is growing and lightweight. A lot of new development is going on in the form of Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs), and there is a push to create an updated specification for ActivityPub. It is a protocol that anyone can implement and run, even on inexpensive hardware.
AT Protocol has major backers, but is expensive to run in a decentralized manner. They are prioritizing experience over decentralization. Friendica supports AT Protocol, and that could be ported to Hubzilla as well, creating at least two Fediverse platforms that support both ActivityPub and AT Protocol natively. Other platforms are talking about supporting both AT Protocol and ActivityPub.
Bridgy Fed already bridges AT Protocol, ActivityPub, and websites that wish to connect to both of these networks.
Zot Protocol (Nomad version 6) will continue to be used by Hubzilla. There is no incentive to switch to ActivityPub for Hubzilla-to-Hubzilla communications since ActivityPub has less functionality than Zot and converting would be a lot of work with little benefit. Nomad protocol is up in the air since Mike is working on porting the Nomad functionality over to ActivityPub, but I hope that Hubzilla and (streams) can be made 100% compatible so that we don't have to differentiate between Zot 6 and Nomad 12 anymore.
Diaspora isn't growing, but may be expanded by Hubzilla and Friendica, which are multi-protocol platforms.
And that does not include Nostr, Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB), and other protocols that have their use cases and adherents. For example, SSB can be used offline, which is unique and useful in certain applications. Nostr can be integrated with cryptocurrency, allowing user-to-user payments.
Since they all solve different problems and have different audiences, it will be hard to get everyone adopt one protocol to rule them all.
And that is probably the best outcome. Different protocols can try out different things, and the great ideas spread across protocols. For example, a lot of the functionality in Zot and Nomad are being proposed as additions to ActivityPub. Ideas such as Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) are making their way into multiple protocols. We can all learn from each other, instead of creating one monolith protocol that tells everyone how they must operate.
I think that eventually each of these protocols will bridge basic functionality between each other. Or third parties will do it for them, as is the case with Bridgy Fed, Friendica, and to a lesser extent Hubzilla. And platforms that support multiple protocols will have an advantage over platforms that do not.
#Hubzilla #ActivityPub #nostr #bridgyfed #diaspora #Zot #Nomad #ssb #atproto
ActivityPub is growing and lightweight. A lot of new development is going on in the form of Fediverse Enhancement Proposals (FEPs), and there is a push to create an updated specification for ActivityPub. It is a protocol that anyone can implement and run, even on inexpensive hardware.
AT Protocol has major backers, but is expensive to run in a decentralized manner. They are prioritizing experience over decentralization. Friendica supports AT Protocol, and that could be ported to Hubzilla as well, creating at least two Fediverse platforms that support both ActivityPub and AT Protocol natively. Other platforms are talking about supporting both AT Protocol and ActivityPub.
Bridgy Fed already bridges AT Protocol, ActivityPub, and websites that wish to connect to both of these networks.
Zot Protocol (Nomad version 6) will continue to be used by Hubzilla. There is no incentive to switch to ActivityPub for Hubzilla-to-Hubzilla communications since ActivityPub has less functionality than Zot and converting would be a lot of work with little benefit. Nomad protocol is up in the air since Mike is working on porting the Nomad functionality over to ActivityPub, but I hope that Hubzilla and (streams) can be made 100% compatible so that we don't have to differentiate between Zot 6 and Nomad 12 anymore.
Diaspora isn't growing, but may be expanded by Hubzilla and Friendica, which are multi-protocol platforms.
And that does not include Nostr, Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB), and other protocols that have their use cases and adherents. For example, SSB can be used offline, which is unique and useful in certain applications. Nostr can be integrated with cryptocurrency, allowing user-to-user payments.
Since they all solve different problems and have different audiences, it will be hard to get everyone adopt one protocol to rule them all.
And that is probably the best outcome. Different protocols can try out different things, and the great ideas spread across protocols. For example, a lot of the functionality in Zot and Nomad are being proposed as additions to ActivityPub. Ideas such as Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) are making their way into multiple protocols. We can all learn from each other, instead of creating one monolith protocol that tells everyone how they must operate.
I think that eventually each of these protocols will bridge basic functionality between each other. Or third parties will do it for them, as is the case with Bridgy Fed, Friendica, and to a lesser extent Hubzilla. And platforms that support multiple protocols will have an advantage over platforms that do not.
#Hubzilla #ActivityPub #nostr #bridgyfed #diaspora #Zot #Nomad #ssb #atproto
25 days ago
trying to communicate with all of them is the only valid option i think. you'd never get hard-core proponents of one or the other decentralized flavour to give up their conviction and switch to another.
25 days ago
And this does not need to be a battle. We can cooperate and collaborate instead. We are trying to create a decentralized social network, after all. A single monolith protocol kinda goes against that.
25 days ago
exactly, neither a battle nor a competition. for me it's important to be able to "talk" to all, at least most of them. i can understand both, trying to keep one's focus by limiting a post's character count, or explaining things in great detail. the only thing i don't like is trying to impose one's own preference on everybody else.
1 month ago
One of the downsides of having many interconnected projects is that they all can be stalled until one dependency is fixed. But, the positive side is that you can use the same codebase to run literally hundreds of projects once you have the unified codebase.
Well, we have gotten to the point where all the dependences are fixed and we can launch minimum viable products (MVPs) for a number of sites and projects.
Now we just have to write content for the websites, and then announce the projects as being officially launched.
Well, we have gotten to the point where all the dependences are fixed and we can launch minimum viable products (MVPs) for a number of sites and projects.
Now we just have to write content for the websites, and then announce the projects as being officially launched.
1 month ago
It is interesting how people use shorthand in conversations and it sparks interesting online debates based on technicalities. For example, someone referring to the EU member states as "Europe," or someone referring to people in the United States of America as "Americans." Technically, not all European countries are in the EU, and not all countries in the Americas are part of the United States of America. But people use this shorthand anyway. It would be nice if people used more precise language when speaking, but we should also understand that just because they use shorthand, that does not mean they are ignorant.
1 month ago
This comes up occasionally , but I don't know that I've ever seen a viable replacement for "American". It is what we call ourselves. I recall someone who used to say something like "USians", which goes over like a lead balloon. For the country, I try to say US or USA, but what other word do we have for "People of the United States of America"? Even WikiPedia says the demonym for the USA is "American".
What does the rest of the world call us (when not being derogatory)?
What does the rest of the world call us (when not being derogatory)?
1 month ago
The subject of what term should be used for the United States is interesting. For example, U.S. embassies in the Americas are called a "United States Embassy" but outside of the Americas, U.S. embassies are called an "American Embassy." And do you know what Mexicans call people from the U.S.? They call us "Norte Americanos" or "North Americans." Technically they are North Americans too, but it is shorthand for people from the U.S.
I agree, I don't think there is a good substitute for Americans. And in the case of someone from the U.S., it means that they are both from the U.S. and from the of Americas (the continents).
I agree, I don't think there is a good substitute for Americans. And in the case of someone from the U.S., it means that they are both from the U.S. and from the of Americas (the continents).