I can’t imagine any way this is possible without crowdsourced information, and at that point you’re just interacting with a community (likely the same one as you already are) through a different interface.

But if such an interface existed, it could be a cool project.

Were the community rules copied straight out of Reddit or something? 3 and 9 are a bit funny.

Didn’t think I had to say it explicitly. As far as influencing Mozilla’s course, I don’t believe those to be very helpful methods. A fork may be helpful, but it highly depends on the developer(s). I argue against the second one all the time. Third is laughably counterproductive.

Mozilla is capable of responding to (esp. proper) feedback. For example, regardless of what you think about the subject, the community sent a pretty clear message when they started accepting cryptocurrency donations, which I’m sure they’re still keeping in mind to this day.

Point being, engaging with them is one thing that helps and I can do just fine. No need for “endless doom screeching.”

Re: positive news. Yes, on paper it can. We’ll see how it turns out in reality. I’ve explained why I’m not immediately into it, though your comment seems to ignore that part of mine. I do want it to work out though, if for no other reason than because what’s done is done and ultimately, I just want Firefox to thrive.

Oh, we’re fully in agreement. I’m not arguing in favor of abandoning Firefox or Mozilla at all. I’m just saying frustration and anxiety are to be expected sometimes. Note that I’m not excusing rudeness or the like.

Re: the burden of developing a modern browser, I wonder what librewolf evangelists think would happen to the project, if Firefox development by Mozilla were to fall due to any reason. To my view, the forks only exist because Firefox still does. After all, if managing an entire browser was possible with their resources, they wouldn’t need to fork one.

I try my best to keep calm and judge things fairly and rationally but, truth is, you get kinda tired of seeing so many iffy-maybe-alright news about Mozilla.

Inline edit: not even a week later, Teixeira v. Moz. Why, Mozilla? Liking you shouldn’t be this complicated.

My fear is that by the time “something happens” to Firefox, it’ll be something that was entirely avoidable if only we had acted sooner. I’m always wondering if I’m at the point I should be acting.

• I’m still salty about their previous CEO, Mitchell Baker, I believe, getting bigger bonuses while Firefox market share fell (and layoffs happened, but we lack details to understand those properly).
• I’m unconvinced that, in a world where the percentage of people using an adblocker is rising, they’ll find a way to change people’s minds and look at ads, even if they are perfectly, technomagically privacy preserving.
• I’m unconvinced that owning Firefox, which puts uBlock as a front-and-center extension, and Anonym, an adtech company, will not create a conflict of interest—just like what happened to Google.

For the record, this is my first time commenting on this and I’m also deeply bothered by “reactionary nerds” (everyone switch to librewolf!!), but I understand the sentiment. Hope that added some perspective.

Anyone know if Mozilla ever made a statement on the state of MS’s LLM training on Github data? I’m curious if they don’t care about having Firefox be part of the dataset or if they just think the benefits of the platform outweigh that.

If you have a bit of time to spare, see this great article for a some history on Mozilla and version control.

You’re right, regarding Mastodon. I won’t edit my other comment, though, both to preserve the original chain of thought and because that brings up another discussion.

To quote the EFF:

We feel that the intended usage of the feature will not determine people’s expectation of privacy while using it.

Offering people a feature with preexisting expectations, similar to other things that fulfill those expectations, then telling people “We know it looks like a duck but don’t expect it to quack!”

…It begs the question: was the feature really a good idea?

And it’s also damming for private messaging on mastodon.

I once read vague complaints about it being a rushed implementation. While I won’t trust those without evidence, I for sure wouldn’t trust mastodon with my PMs. At least, not until how this was allowed to happen is figured out and fixed if necessary.

P.S. I’m still not sure I believe in PMs in the fediverse. If I need to share something and care about keeping it private, I’d rather move the conversation elsewhere.

Honestly, that strategy feels like the most sensible one, since the real world often does not (or can not afford to) care to wait for v1.0.0 before using software. It’s no wonder so many programming ecosystems have adopted it.

I find it a bit of a shame it’s not part of the semver specification itself, which only states:

4. (paraphrased) do whatever you want haha

My point is, I don’t think that’s “your bad.” It’s just how it is, and the best there currently is. Unless you think there’s something that could’ve been done better, in which case I’m curious as to what, if you’re willing to share.

Why do you hate vertical tabs so much, mate?

One can hope :^)

My bad, I wasn’t sure! Figured it’d be better to waste a little time typing than risk people misunderstanding the context behind the tech.

That might be overly optimistic? Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, here.

From my understanding, the main drive behind adding AP federation is to allow users of separate code forges to collaborate on each other’s projects, much like how users of lemmy can interact with communities of other lemmy instances. This is big because it could break the “but everyone is on GitHub” problem.

Currently, it’s difficult to justify completely leaving GH, since those that do leave behind countless users and developers who won’t follow them and create yet-another-account on one-more-website. Federated code forges have the potential to bring easier decentralization to an ironically centralized land.

Keyword here being easier. Because even though Git is already decentralized by design and some think git-send-email is plenty for collaboration (e.g. many Linux maintainers, sourcehut users), it turns out way more people prefer doing their work in pretty web UIs.

But just like lemmy and mastodon aren’t great at showing their users content from the other platform because it’s not a priority, I don’t see why forgejo would prioritize letting lemmy users interact with projects.

That’s a shame, thank you for the input. I guess I could try Bluesky instead.

Not sure how up to date you are on Bluesky’s situation, but it might interest you to know they’ve recently started doing early-access federation. It’s… not ideal (opinion), but it’s moving along (fact).

While I agree with you, I just want to mention that not necessarily all fediverse users have a formed opinion (at least at first) about open platforms, sharing content with other websites, and so on.

Some people just suffered from platforms like ex-Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, etc. enshittifying, heard that other victims were trying to build something better, and (generously, might I add) decided to give it a chance.

That doesn’t excuse any horrible behavior they might’ve engaged in. But remember that just because someone is surprised and reacts negatively at how their content is handled on the fediverse, that doesn’t mean they were in the wrong to join.

Folks can jump into things without fully understanding them, and sometimes it’s nice to, circumstances allowing, take that as an opportunity to inform, rather than question “Why are you even here?”

There’s quite a bit to unpack in this article, even if some of it is only mentioned.

It’s a saddening read. There are issues with Fediverse culture and surrounding technical discussion at wide, but also with interactions between law and new technologies like ActivityPub—and that’s on top of the law, on it’s own, already doing a horrible job way too often, in my opinion. None of this is news, but it always hurts a little to be reminded so.

I’ve been thinking about trying to get into mastodon, to form my own opinion on several topics it intersects with. I’m a little uncomfortable with how popular it is compared to other fediverse software, considering how poorly they seem to integrate. I hoped some time on mastodon would dispell this feeling, or at least give me insights I could work with. To be honest, every day it gets a little harder to justify that idea.

But that’s just a personal thing. Maybe I’m simply not fit for micro-blogging. Really, I don’t care which software is the most popular, I literally just wish they’d integrate better. Despite my misgivings, I’m grateful for the positive impact mastodon has made in the social/tech circles, changing how many people see social media and their relationship with it.

The us-versus-them mentality is unreal. The only valid them, to me, is proprietary closed platforms. We should strive for more decentralized networks that shift control over user experience back to its users, because we need and deserve safer, healthier social networks. This is not it. I can only hope culture will improve, because I’m not sure how you’d tackle a problem on this scale.

And if mastodon can’t fix itself? Screw it, and keep an eye on what comes next.

It’s not a competition, we’re in a team effort to build a part of the internet that can resist enshittification inevitable in closed platforms; so long as the platform is open, I’ll keep my mind open as well. If my lemmy instance decides to migrate to Sublinks, that’s fine. Worst case, I’ll migrate elsewhere. Assuming Bluesky turns out OK as a company, even atproto taking the lead over ActivityPub might be fine. Hell, some of the original AP creators are still experimenting with new ideas.

I fully agree with the point that too many people act like the fediverse, or their specific brand of it, is more open-minded and kinder than what they’re trying to replace. I hope it’s possible to make that true, one day.

P.S. Sorry, brevity is the soul of wit, and I’m an idiot. This ended up as an outlet for issues that have been frustrating me for a while.

I used to enjoy fireship, but a particularly disappointing video soured the channel to me significantly.

It was about something bad Google was doing to the web/chrome (the list’s so big at this point that I can’t recall what) and it hit me how, despite the humorous nature of the content, that video was how many people were being seriously introduced to the issue… and it neglected to even mention Firefox. Imagine informing people of a looming threat, yet forgetting to mention one of the best tools against it. Genuinely baffling.

There’s more to it, but it’s been a while and my memory was never the best. All that remains now is a general feeling of “Oh darn, this guy’s videos can be irresponsibly superficial, sometimes.” Maybe that’s just par for the course with such content creators, which race to be the first out the door with the news™, but mistakes, however small, had long been adding up over time and eroding my trust in the source. That video just happened to be the last straw.

I don’t mean to criticize you or others who enjoy the videos, though. Just wanted to remind folks to be careful with where and how they get their info. Hopefully, this uncalled for rant will inspire passersby to be a bit more mindful of the content they consume.

P.S. obligatory screw nintendo :^(

People interested in these topics might also be interested in taking a look at how Zig handles some of them, for added perspective. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the project lead’s ideas re: open-source funding, but I believe it’s worth knowing they exist.

I completely understand. Though I rarely watch it nowadays, I’m much the same. Sometimes I’ll make an exception when I hear the dubbed version is worth it.