• 0 Posts
  • 416 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2024

help-circle
  • I suppose it makes more sense the less you want to do and the older your hardware is. Even when repurposing old laptops and stuff like that I find the smallest apps I’d want to run were orders of magnitude more costly than any OS overhead. This was even true that one time I got lazy and started running stuff on an older Windows machine without reinstalling the OS, so I’m guessing anything Linux-side would be fine.


  • After a OS update? I mean, I guess, but most things are going to be in containers anyway, right?

    The last update that messed me up on any counts was Python-related and that would have got me on any distro just as well.

    Once again, I get it at scale, where you have so much maintenance to manage and want to keep it to a minimum, but for home use it seems to me that being on an LTS/stable update channel would have a much bigger impact than being on a lightweight distro.


  • MudMan@fedia.iotoSelfhosted@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m sidetracking a bit, but am I alone in thinking self hosting hobbyists are way too into “lightweight and not bloated” as a value?

    I mean, I get it if you have a whole data center worth of servers, but if it’s a cobbled together home server it’s probably fine, right? My current setup idles at 1.5% of its CPU and 25% of its RAM. If I turned everything off those values are close to zero and effectively trivial alongside any one of the apps I’m running in there. Surely any amount of convenience is worth the extra bloat, right?


  • “Want” isn’t my concern. Presumably no developers want to give Google a piece of anything they generate, open source or not.

    My concern was not understanding how this interferes with F-Droid and that has been explained above: F-Droid builds their own APKs for verification and this process potentially makes that a lot harder while not providing a replacement for their verification from Google.

    That makes sense and it is indeed a dealbreaker. The other thing much less so.


  • Oooh, gotcha. That makes sense.

    I guess it’d make sense to take that first option as far as it will go, at which point the issue becomes litigating this the first time Google has their own weird censorship issue in the Apple mold. I’d expect if they ban all of F-Droid explicitly that would at least make more ripples than going after a single torrent client app or whatever. It may play out different from a regulatory perspective, too, if the practical effect is they ban third party stores.

    Side note, I’m really mad at the very deliberate choice Google made of categorizing all potential apps as either “apps meant for Google Play” or “student or hobbyist apps”. You know they know why that’s wrong, but it still makes you want to explain it to them.


  • I’m confused by this:

    The F-Droid project cannot require that developers register their apps through Google, but at the same time, we cannot “take over” the application identifiers for the open-source apps we distribute, as that would effectively seize exclusive distribution rights to those applications.

    If it were to be put into effect, the developer registration decree will end the F-Droid project and other free/open-source app distribution sources as we know them today, and the world will be deprived of the safety and security of the catalog of thousands of apps that can be trusted and verified by any and all. F-Droid’s myriad users5 will be left adrift, with no means to install — or even update their existing installed — applications.

    My understanding is that developers need to sign up with Google and once they have an account they can sign their own apks.

    How would this impact F-Droid in any way? Presumably by the time F-Droid enters the picture the developers of the apps they distribute would have already gone through that entire process, right? The apks will be tied to that new Google certificate, but after that they can still be distributed anywhere.

    I mean, don’t get me wrong, this has genuine, very serious, dealbreaking issues, in that Google can just cancel the account of a developer making apps they don’t like, the same way Apple has done in the past. That’s not great. But from F-Droid’s perspective all of that has happened upstream, they are not anywhere in that loop, unless I’ve misunderstood the changes.



  • No.

    Hell no.

    That’s so bad.

    For one thing this was clearly written by a human and fairly decently so, as these things go. Assuming you want humans to do journalism instead of shitty corpos outsourcing it all to chatbots, it may help to engage with it as intended every now and then.

    For another thing, never assume anything you see on social media exists at all. It probably doesn’t. At best it’s a slice of it selected to get a rise out of you in one way or another. Yes, including here. Algorithms didn’t come up with the notion that people react more to stuff that makes them angry. I’m not saying to touch grass, but… like, touch some astroturf at least. Find a human who has touched grass once and ask them about it. Don’t live your life mediated by social media posts, what the hell.

    And if you’re going to inhabit a semiotic ecosystem that exists primarily in the dregs of cyberdystopia at the very least put the work in of either understanding what’s being thrown at you via the firehose of constant worldwide anger or… you know, not reacting to it. You really have no obligation to add to this crap.

    To be clear, I was going “we suck as a species” before I realized you’re saying if someone doesn’t plagiarize or summarize the content for you then you’re not gonna read it but will still react to the version of it that pops into your head. I wasn’t even considering that level of suck to be on purpose, let alone self-righteous.

    I’m gonna go not be on the Internet for a second.





  • Yeah, see, I’m not a lawyer, but I am confident enough that “committing crimes in another country remotely is safe” is absolutely terrible legal advice. Don’t do that. I am confident enough in my understanding of legal matters to issue that recommendation.

    I mean, I’ve given Rochko crap here for not thinking things through when he incorrectly suggested more decentralization would make Masto behave differently than Bluesky in this issue. I don’t for a second assume he meant “because fuck it, fine me if you can, USA” or I would be giving him way more crap and closing my Masto account just in case for good measure.


  • If you run a social media platform that hosts American users they actually might.

    Same as the bar for whether GDPR applies to you isn’t whether your server is physically in the EU, it’s whether you’re processing data from EU users. Or, in fact, how you’re supposed to get explicit permission from EU users to host their data anywhere outside the EU in the first place.

    Now, I’m not a lawyer in Mississippi, so I’m not gonna give you legal advice, but I would definitely look into it if I’m setting up a public instance. The same way I’d be looking into what compliance things I need to do to host people’s data, both due to GDPR and due to other privacy laws around the world. It’s one thing to set up for friends and family, but if you’re hosting data from outsiders you probably need to understand what you’re doing.

    I’ve also not looked into what happens if you are sharing data with a noncompliant server in a restricted territory (so someone is self hosting in Mississippi and then federating with your server elsewhere). I don’t think the legislators who wrote this dumb rule know, either. They clearly haven’t thought that far ahead. Common sense dictates that the outside server would be fine and it’d be the local server’s problem to be compliant. I presume that’s what Bluesky is counting on (i.e. that someone will set up a local instance and act as an ingest bridge for them without it having to be them). Then again, you have British legislators now claiming that all VPNs need to have age controls, so I am not taking common sense for granted when it comes to these things.


  • Yeah, Mastodon gGmbH also hosts mastodon.social, as far as I can tell. Or… I mean, at least that’s the address and company info they show in mastodon.social’s about page (not Mastodon, but mastodon.social, there are two separate About pages, both reference Mastodon’s gGmbH’s address).

    The one thing I’ll give you is that the statement they issued is talking about Mastodon software overall not having the technical tools to comply with the law in the first place and are explicitly refusing to comment on what mastodon.social will specifically do about it.

    Which is irrelevant because, one presumes, if the answer was to build the tools to be able to comply with the age verification law they would have said that and put them into the Mastodon software, not just kept them exclusively for mastodon.social.



  • No, the article is about Mastodon.social’s nonprofit following up with an official statement after not responding when approached about the original report.

    Eugen himself was just shitting on Bluesky, his entire comment was that Bluesky leaving showed “why true decentralization is important”. Ironically, that whole pissing match ended up hinging about how much Eugen was focusing on Bluesky rather than their protocol, too. Turns out to be a popular deflection and it turns out to not change anything practical.

    You are retroactively trying to reinterpret the subject matter here to save face and I’m too tired right this minute to entertain it. We don’t have to have a conversation, man, no hard feelings, but if you insist on having one here I’d appreciate if it wasn’t about something else entirely.


  • We are focusing on mastodon.social because you jumped on a thread about mastodon.social confirming they won’t be complying with Mississippi’s age verification law, which in turn is a follow up to coverage of Bluesky doing the same thing. And also because Eugen Rochko jumped into that announcement to claim that Bluesky stepping away from that territory was an example of how Fedi’s wider decentralization was an advantage, even though it turned out to no be an advantage at all.

    Why would we be talking about anything else? That’s literally the topic. You may be looking for a different thread. If anything, the uncontrolled impulse to talk about the ways in which AP is more decentralized than AT whether that’s relevant to the conversation or not is the exact communication mistake Eugen made. Which makes doing that again even weirder.

    To be clear, it doesn’t matter where your instance is hosted. Mastodon.social is not hosted in Mississippi, either, it’s hosted in Berlin. You’re still taking on a TON of potential liability if you don’t comply with their age verification or block that territory from access if the law stays in the books, just like you’re risking a ton of liability if you breach GDPR even if your site isn’t in the EU.


  • It doesn’t matter, though. They all have the same choice to make: comply, shut down in that territory… or be fined an insane amount.

    Eugen argued… well, pretty much what you are arguing now. The question Bluesky guy posed to him is what Mastodon.social would do and how would the presence of smaller instances prevent the issue, especially for instances without the resources to comply at all in the first place.

    Eugen did not respond to that, but Mastodon.social just did, and the answer is… Mastodon.social will do the same thing as Bluesky and so will every other instance.

    Because of course it’s pretty obvious that having a decentralized platform doesn’t help with stupid regulation, because stupid regulation applies to every instance. There’s no reason decentralization would bypass a blanket requirement unless the legal requirement has carved an exception for smaller platforms (and even then there’s a question of what counts as a platform in that scenario).

    And the thing is… I’m okay with you not having though that through, but Eugen certainly must have. Right? I mean, they had a pretty well thought out answer for Techcrunch in 24 hours, they must have given it some thought. It’s an unforced communication error.



  • So in this whole embarrassing dick measuring contest Eugen was wrong and Mike Masnick was right, then. Turns out “real decentralization” or not, Masto/Fedi’s structure doesn’t do anything to bypass this nonsense.

    This is not new. People constanty claim AP and Fedi have benefits or features just for being decentralized that they absolutely do not have, but I have to admit I’m kinda shocked that Eugen will do that exact thing without any more self-awareness than the average Masto user. He should know better.