There is no better. Maybe they pick a name that’s more intuitive for you, but it’d be less intuitive for someone else.

They have a pronunciation guide in their FAQ on the website. There is no branding that would be obvious/intuitive to everyone

consequence of the terminally-online brain rot

Disagree. Its a consequence of corporations loudly proclaiming their support for groups when it cost nothing (think Black History Month here in the US). Corporations like to use a lot of empty marketing talk about societal issues when they can get away with it and ppl have decided to fight that by pushing companies to actually takes stands. Also, corporations here in the US have much larger voices than individual (and again this is because of the corporations’ own actions), so some ppl see it as a way they can actually have an influence on their govt.

Web 1.0 means no interactivity outside of forms (client to server request<-> response cycle). Web 2.0 was the label used when sites started gaining interactivity, using Javascript.

Mozilla seized an opportunity to bring trustworthy AI into Firefox

Therefore, as part of the changes today, we will be bringing together Pocket, Content, and the AI/ML teams supporting content with the Firefox Organization

This is from the Mozilla release. The second quote does say “Firefox Organization” and not “Firefox”, but it seems clear they are planning on integrating AI into Firefox.

But, I’ve reread @NotSteve_'s comment and they were saying the funding earned from AI could be put into Firefox, not AI itself. NotSteve wasn’t claiming that putting AI into Firefox would bring in more funding, only that AI could be a separate source of revenue. So my question is moot.

how will putting AI in Firefox get them funding?

Again, both of those are older, more established instances so its more likely they are already aware of any given user.

And a lemmy user probably isn’t the best test for this, because of how lemmy works. If anybody on the instances follows a lemmy community, all posts and comments in that community will make it to the instance. Which means lemmy users are probably spread around the fediverse more than users of other software.

If your instance is already aware of that user, you don’t need the domain. Mastodon.social is the oldest mastodon instance and probably the biggest, so it is aware of a large majority of the fediverse.

If you know the person’s twitter handle, its simple to search for them. People coming from centralized systems, don’t realize that you have to include the domain for fediverse searches to work. I couldn’t just find you by searching for p03locke, I’d have to search for @p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com.

Also, if my instance has never interacted with you, your profile probably won’t show posts when I find you (though this is a choice and I don’t know why implementations won’t fix it.)

Again, instance blocks makes this more complicated because my instance could block yours or yours could block mine and that would prevent this search from working but the user wouldn’t know that.

Most people are pointed to joinmastodon.org first and have to pick an instance. And since they’re not familiar with decentralization, they don’t understand what that means. It’s especially weird that they can’t directly join mastodon on the site called “joinmastodon” but have to go to another site.

Then once you get past that to make an account, you have to find people and discovery has always been one of the worst aspects of the fediverse. And the graph of instance blocks means a new user may not even be able to find the people they care about and they won’t know why.

If you know all this, its easy to understand. But for people used to a centralized system and unaware of all the intricacies of the network, there’s a lot of snags here.

I think the developer of PieFed is mistaken because the microblogging projects also use shared inbox a lot. My understanding is that for certain classes of posts, they actually just use it over a user’s individual inbox and the remote server is responsible for delivering it from the shared inbox to the user’s timeline.

It’s definitely possible. There are quite a few self hosting solutions that have UIs for installing/managing applications. The author is saying we need to make those better.

I don’t think pitching #ActivityPub to existing social media makes sense. Adding federation to a non-federated social media service isn’t a net win.

You have to spend the time and money to implement it. Then you have to spend the time and money to maintain it. Most of the time, ActivityPub support is implemented as mastodon compatibility, not true AP support. This means having to constantly make sure you keep up with masto changes and constantly fielding issues with other implementations because you didn’t fully implement AP.

And after implementation, you don’t just gain access to a ton of new users, you have to take on the burden of moderating all of it (which is a persistent ant recurring time and money cost). And since the #fediverse has a ton of opinions on moderation, you’re always pissing somebody off.

And after all that, what you’ve enabled is an easy way for your users to recreate their social graph without your service. The idea of an interconnected social web is cool, and hopefully it’ll be the futrue, but it doesn’t make sense for profit-driven businesses.

-- From my alt 0x1C3B00DA@stereophonic.space

Thanks for pointing out Ladybird. It’s a pretty exciting project. But the author isn’t early in “announcing” anything. This isn’t a press release. He posted on his own blog about a pet project. That’s what the web is supposed to be. Not everything has to be for a big purpose or compete with everything else.

A one-man project starting from scratch is not going to be viable in this day and age.

It’s a pet project; it doesn’t need to be “viable”.

I think this attitude is part of the reason why we have so few browsers. Every time someone tries to start their own browser, even just for fun, a lot of the response is just bitching about how big and complex browsers are and how the effort to start a new one is wasted. It makes it so that people interested in writing their own browser (for fun or profit) are less likely to share about it and probably less likely to pursue it seriously

I disagree that we’re hardwired to acquire stuff. But even if we are, we’re sentient beings who overcome a lot of things we’re hardwired to do, so that is just one more thing we should be aware of about our own thinking.

Right. That’s how you grow a walled garden network. That’s why I’m criticizing them. Mastodon is not a social network; it’s software that connects to the network, which is the fediverse.

You could make the argument that they’re technically different things, but I think in practice they are the same. If you’re looking for something specific, then yeah search is gonna be more effective than hashtags. But if you’re just looking for something to read, you could search for “fediverse” or trawl the #fediverse hashtag. Not everybody chooses to add hashtags to their posts so full text search is gonna find more posts than just a hashtag search (assuming full text search also returns matches on hashtag).

I still don’t think search for public posts needs to be opt-in. But even ignoring that, my point was that mastodon merged this change without coordinating with other projects. They didn’t check what the easiest way to signal an opt-in would be for other projects. They made the decision unilaterally and now other projects will be left out of masto search by default. And if their users want to be searchable from mastodon, they have to stop working on features for their own project and work on this.

My issue is just that mastodon never respects other projects enough to coordinate, makes decisions that affect other projects without input from them, implements features that further isolate mastodon users from the rest of the fediverse or makes it harder for them to interact.

hashtags are supposed to be an optimization for search, not the sole axis of searchability.