It’s not very far away from injecting it into a webpage though. I feel like at this point it wouldn’t make any difference. Except on a meta level.
Just wait until they open a little popup or sidebar with bing search results every time you search on Google, DuckDuckGo or whatever competitor.
Don’t you think it’s different if Google says this on their own sites vs Microsoft showing this when visiting their competitors?
Both isn‘t good. But I feel like one of those is clearly worse.
I don’t see those as alternatives. Skype was always really buggy, sometimes it worked, other times it didn’t. Didn’t have great cross platform support and wasn’t suited for meetings without 500 - 1000 people. I used it in the past and it was always a huge pain to deal with.
Hangouts is nice for 1:1 chats, but it feels lacking. Last time I tried to have a screen share in a separate window it already failed to do so.
Discord isn’t really an enterprise tool.
Like… I don’t really want to defend Zoom, but the one thing they do just works.
What were the alternatives? One thing I can say about zoom is that it’s easy to use, barely ever has any issues and handles a huge number of participants without a sweat.
I recall having used MS Teams before. But it often wouldn’t work, had server issues and couldn’t handle large audiences well.
Ah it will be at done point
And still it’s basically all Google.
Because blocking intolerant folks is a must in order to have a civilized conversation. It has nothing to do with creating echo chambers or being left/right wing.
No they didn’t? My company just recently introduced it.
I’m unsure of many people know that StackOverflow also had enterprise offerings. Our company has their own StackOverflow instance with very specific content to our tech stacks.
But you would still need an authority that can unilaterally make changes to these ownership records. People die, things get lost, stuff happens. So it can’t all be based on signing with private keys of individual persons. At that point: Why not run a central database of it all. It’s cheaper, more efficient and you could still publish a public record for traceability.
I really don’t see any problem that Blockchain could solve better than other solutions. Except Cryptocurrency.
I personally don’t derive any value from high quality conversations about topics I don’t care about. That’s why I need these millions of users, so that there are people I can talk with. About topics I care about. I’m willing to go on a limb here an say that your interests and mine don’t fully align.
That doesn’t sound right. But then again, like someone else already said: If they aren’t in the EU and don’t have dealings with them (because they aren’t large companies), who is going to enforce it?
Nah. Why should I be against it? That’s a rather weird stance. I don’t really tend do deal in auch absolutes. But seeing that it’s a technical problem for you I don’t think there is merit in talking further about it. I don’t see it that way. Technology is just an enabler. It doesn’t much matter in these things.
What I meant by that is that I doubt that you can make your club so resilient. We are talking about a lot of social dynamics here. This isn’t a technical problem in any way. And the past has shown that network effects are a real thing. So inevitably if you give someone with a thousand times the resources and likely than the rest of the community the opportunity they will take it. It will become known as the main instance and everyone will join there. Smaller instances will become more irrelevant as they are already and at some point bow to what the largest instance dictates.
Take Lemmy for example. You can already see some of that happening with instances like beehaw. Do what they say or you get defederated. Naturally smaller instances will fall in line. What do you imagine happens if an instance joins that is as thousand times the size of the current entire network?
At some point it will be „do as we say or loose all your content“. Which will then lead to users switching instances where they have the access they want.
This is not a technical problem. The protocols can be nice and open. But that doesn’t help you if the network itself is fragile due to human nature.
What I meant is: It sounds nice in theory that you can build a social network in a federated way that is resilient to our social nature. I just have my concerns and going to watch with interest how it unfolds. It will likely take some years. But we‘ll see.
That sounds nice in theory. Going to be very interesting how it holds up in practice.
Yeah but these examples are all bigger than Google. The fediverse irrelevant in comparison. Additionally at least Linux doesn’t have such a strong network effect, since it’s not a social network. I mean I’m going to let myself be surprised. But I kinda doubt that anything good will come from it.
The Meta business side isn’t nice folks that try to do good in general.
Comparing a web forum to a medium article with people commenting under it. It looks like that person has little grasps on why Reddit or the likes are being used.
No one is using comments on sites like Medium to discuss anything. The comments there are always low quality from people that have no clue. You find that on Reddit as well. But the threading and voting systems kind of accounts for that.
These aggregators are a site to discuss what’s written on medium. They aren’t a replacement and vice versa.
Weird person that came to this conclusion. Imagine stop using forums. What would be lost. One person writing a medium article couldn’t replace that wealth of information.
That sounds like a very naive view on part of that developer. He probably never heard of Microsoft’s „Embrace, extend, and extinguish“ approach. This is going to be similar with Facebook. They have a lot more resources than all current instances combined and can provide a much better user experience. They are going to be the main instance on the federated network slowly starting to extend it and support features others lack. Making it a unique selling point until it’s too late.
And that’s not even looking at the moral/ethical standpoint of getting involved with Meta.
My assumption was based on the idea to have a proper YouTube replacement. Not some run down video storage for a hand full of large content creators that can afford it.
creators already store their content locally
A lot of creators delete at least the raw footage because they don’t have enough space and it would be too expensive. One creator hosting their own content wouldn’t even begin to scale in such a scenario. They would need powerful hardware and serious network connectivity. Something the large creators probably could afford, but most couldn’t.
peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.
Especially old tech is less efficient than current generations.
Same. Found it to be better with some and worse work others. With some of those where it provides worse results compared to ChatGPT it just feels like it’s missing the fine tuning. It provides pretty similar results as when ChatGPT 3.5 came out a while ago. People just tend to forget about it.