Many things are fundamentally feasible. I see 2 things you argue for.

One is changing the caching strategy. I don’t think that’s wise in terms of load sharing, but certainly feasible on a small scale. In certain circumstances, it may be preferred.

The other thing is using older protocols and standards. The practical reason to do this would be to use existing tooling, libraries, code. I’m not seeing such opportunities. I’m not that familiar with these, but it seems like they would have to be extended anyway. So I don’t really see the point.

At a minimum this is adding the number of instances that federate a given content streams to the multiple of storage needed to host the content, even if that storage is ephemeral. Not so big a problem at 100,000 users, but at 100,000,000 users this is a lot of storage cost we are talking about. Unless somehow the user/client doesnt cache the content they pull from an instance locally on their device when they view it?

Worry more about the bandwidth. Your instance would have to serve your content to all these 100M users. The way it is, much of the load goes to the instance where a user is registered. That means that an instance can control hosting costs by closing registrations.

My point was this isn’t an issue when all content is self-hosted, because the author as the host can edit, delete, or migrate all they want and maintain full direct control over the source of that content the client interacts with whenever a pull request comes in. Yes the user Caches the content when they read it, but there is no intermediary copy.

There’s the fundamental problem. What you think of as “your” data, other people think of as “their” data. That can’t be resolved. What’s worse is that controlling “your” data requires controlling other people’s computers and devices, as with DRM.

Almost?

War. War never changes.

This is a US patent; not directly relevant to Japanese operations.

Yes, absolutely. And there is money in patent trolling. I just don’t see the business case here. Why damage the Nintendo brand with such shenanigans when you could leave the patent trolling to some formally independent company. Maybe I just underestimate how much money can be made by shaking down small devs.

Depends on the jurisdiction. This is a conflict between freedom of speech and the reputation of the brand (which has financial value). Countries with a more recent monarchical past tend to value reputation over free speech, eg Japan but also Europe. The US has been a republic for a quarter millennium. Since MS is a US company, I think they wouldn’t even pursue this in the first place.

Generally, service providers are exempt for liability for such things if they follow certain rules of conduct. EG the US DMCA says that you are not liable for copyright infringement, if you comply with takedown notices. I’m not sure how that works for trademarks in the US.

Generally, though, you should expect to be held responsible for any infringing content on your service, once you learn/are notified about it. You will be treated as if you had created the content yourself. That means that you will have to make the argument in court that the use of the trademark was legal. And if you lose, you will pay the damages.

Questions?

This patent could have a chilling effect, but there’s no way it would stand up in court. They can still use it as a bargaining chip. Court cases are expensive. And if you don’t have a legal department, they are also a personal drain. But that’s small fry. Financially, I don’t believe it makes sense for them to resort to criminality to get such a patent. Maybe they hope it will influence their court case in Japan against Palworld?

You have full control over a server on which you chose to run certain Software. But you feel you don’t have to comply with takedown requests because that’s just how the software works? That may work on indulgent parents but not in court. If you’re too technically inept to know how to comply, then you’re just not complying. End of story.

What did they tell him about how his father and uncle died?

Probably the truth, just like they told him the truth about vaccines.

Holy shit. I can’t believe that 65 people upvoted this. Do you really believe that’s how the world works? Are you actually adults?

Yesterday, the police opened fire at the protesters and killed 19 people.

Today, the latest official numbers from the government speak of 30 dead and over 1000 injured treated in hospitals.

Light many lamps and gather round his bed.

Lend him your eyes, warm blood, and will to live.

Speak to him; rouse him; you may save him yet.

He’s young; he hated war; how should he die

When cruel old campaigners win safe through?

---

But death replied: “I choose him.” So he went,

And there was silence in the summer night;

Silence and safety; and the veils of sleep.

Then, far away, the thudding of the guns.

That’s why the protests started.

The imposition of the ban was discussed in this community. I agree that this is barely on topic but that’s precisely why it should be available here. So that people who are interested in social media bans but not in world news, can find the info in the same channels and put the FO to the FA.

It was signed by a number of people, including OG ActivityPub contributors. I guess you’d have to know what goes on in the mailing list.

Looking around here, there’s a lot of ignorant hostility. I am always surprised by how tech-illiterate fediverse fans are. People who feel that that’s their peer group probably have a hard time ignoring that background toxicity.

The statement has been… uh… updated. The URL now reads:

A statement was originally published here, however, we have since received an objections to its publication citing that proper processes were not followed, and therefore it has been taken down and republished on Emelia’s website instead, whilst we seek community group consensus. When Emelia merged the pull request, she had been granted permission to do so by the co-chair of the Social Web CG, and given the number of signatories with various significant contributions to ActivityPub and ActivityStreams, Emelia believed that there was enough agreement to publish.

Are you sure about that? There’s this Torchwood ep where they acknowledge that fact of human nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mk3JXFadEg

To boldly come where no man has come before.

• Zafran Cockrain

I assume it proves that there is a public key associated with each vote.

It doesn’t sound like cryptography is able to add anything worthwhile. You have to trust the instance to police itself. Self-hosted instances still don’t vote anonymously.

A group of users has to cooperate to hide their votes from others and each other. Only the tally is known, but you have to trust the group. On the Fediverse, such a group will be the users of an instance. The more users the instance has, the more anonymous the individual becomes.

You have to trust the instance admins to weed out bots and sock puppets, which is extra hard when they don’t see the votes either. Presumably, compensating by collecting and keeping other data, such as IPs, for longer is undesirable. You have to believe that admins, volunteers all, are willing to do the extra work and that they don’t actually favor manipulation for ideological reasons.

The only way to uncover untrustworthy instances is to look at aggregated data. I guess you’d have to get/scrape data for some community and then analyze by instance if the number of posters is out of whack with the number of voters. I wonder if anyone’s ever done such a thing. It’s certainly more challenging than looking at oddities among voters who brigade some topic.

Admins of large instances could get away with having many sock voters among the real users, if they wanted to manipulate discussions for, say, ideological reasons.

You could also make it prove each vote comes from one real account and that no account voted twice.

How would it prove that the account is real? I suspect that the meaning of “real account” is not the opposite of bot or sockpuppet.