Self hosting isn’t really compatible with viral content

The post I was replying to claimed virality and self hosting are at odds with one another because it causes skyrocketing expense. My point was that maybe someone selfhosting a server in the fediverse is not as interested in virality. And I doubt even the most viral posts in the fediverse would break the bank of a selfhoster

Virality is nowhere near the only reason for posting videos. People post them to make jokes, teach something, reply to someone else, etc, or all the same reasons someone might make a blogpost or a post on a link aggregator.

Theres no web app? That seems short sighted. You apparently cant access anything without logging either. I dont expect these shorts to get much viewership if you have to register and download an app to see anything. It also doesnt seem in the spirit of the fediverse

Maybe the problem in that equation is the expectation of virality and not self hosting?

I feel you but i dont think podcasters point to youtube for video feeds because of a supposed limitation of RSS. They do it because of the storage and bandwidth costs of hosting video.

chat apps and systems like Twitter and Mastodon aren’t a good place for journalism

Super agree with that. Framing this feature as specific to journalism was a poor choice. The feature is useful for any writer/blogger/joe schmoe on the web

And if some indie dev lasts a little bit longer because I threw away a few dollars, i’m all for it

BEAM is the VM that Erlang runs on. It also supports Elixir and some other lesser known languages

Then, there is TikTok algorithm which is a common critic of the app but is how you get a never-ending flow of content which isn’t uninteresting enough for you to turn the app off

I think there needs to be some kind of discovery algorithm for new users with an empty feed (or even existing users who just wanna find something new) but a federated alternative doesn’t need something as powerful as the tiktok algorithm to be a decent replacement. It doesn’t need to surface a “never-ending flow of content” because it doesn’t have a financial incentive to keep you in the app endlessly.

on-demand pods that travel on existing abandoned railways.

They’re reusing existing tracks.

I could see walking through a debug session document with a junior dev to guide them on how to debug classes of issues better. Or if they’re running into a bug and ask for your help, you could write out the first few debugging steps and let them take it from there. That might be easier to understand than “I’d check service X and see if it’s processing Y like it should or just passing it on to Z”. Having a defined way to explain how to debug an issue could be useful

Relying on the competence of unaffiliated developers is not a good way to run a business.

This affects any site that’s posted on the fediverse, including small personal sites. Some of these small sites are for people who didn’t set the site up themselves and don’t know how or can’t block a user agent. Mastodon letting a bug like this languish when it affects the small independent parts of the web that mastodon is supposed to be in favor of is directly antithetical to its mission.

People have submitted various fixes but the lead developer blocks them. Expecting owners of small personal websites to pay to fix bugs of any random software that hits their site is ridiculous. This is mastodon’s fault and they should fix it. As long as the web has been around, the expected behavior has been for a software team to prioritize bugs that affect other sites.

This issue has been noted since mastodon was initially release > 7 years ago. It has also been filed multiple times over the years, indicating that previous small “fixes” for it haven’t fully fixed the issue.

What legislation like this would do is essentially let the biggest players pull the ladders up behind them

But you’re claiming that there’s already no ladder. Your previous paragraph was about how nobody but the big players can actually start from scratch.

All this aside from the conceptual flaws of such legislation. You’d be effectively outlawing people from analyzing data that’s publicly available

How? This is a copyright suit. Like I said in my last comment, the gathering of the data isn’t in contention. That’s still perfectly legal and anyone can do it. The suit is about the use of that data in a paid product.

I’m not familiar with the exact amount of resources, but I know it takes a lot. My point was about what specifically is in contention here.

Also, you were the one pointing out that this case could entrench “giant fucking corporations” in the space. But if they’re the only ones who can afford the resources to train them, then this case won’t have an effect on that entrenchment

Harvesting the dataset isn’t the problem. Using copyrighted work in a paid product is the problem. Individuals could still train their own models for personal use

yes exactly what sneezycat said. I was being sarcastic and pointing out that Manifest V3 was always a crackdown on ad blocking and nothing else.

It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.

There’s no way Mozilla is replacing Google as the default, so what are they actually announcing here? I didn’t read any actual results thats happening. Are they just adding Qwant as an option in the search engine settings?