[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

But I think there's a big difference here

I tried to use mastodon but I feel that microblogging inherently require some centralization, it's impossibile to find people to follow and the feed is always a mess with bunch of stuff that doesn't interest me.

On the contrary I'm using Lemmy since a while and it works much better for content discovery, communities act as a"human algorithm" the same way they work on Reddit and it help much with the federation approach.

What I arrived to realize is that some form of social media are more adaptable to the fediverse.

For example, I hardly see any decentralized version of TikTok

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

Centralized services are usually more efficient than decentralized but that's not the primary goal of the fediverse

My main concern with this is, if only a handful of centralized social network reached long term stability, and most of them are unprofitable, how can Lemmy (or any other foss fediverse project) completely hold itself on 2 unpaid developers and immense unpaid work from volunteers in the long run.

Because ok, Lemmy.world is looking for experienced sysadmin and that post already had a little backslash, but this isn't sustainable long term, it's impossibile to keep scaling like that.

And I feel that's one of the biggest reasons holding back the fediverse

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago

Ok but the question that arise is:" if the community is duplicated on every server that access it, isn't it a little bit of a waste of computational power and disk space ?"

Expecially considering now Lemmy is pretty small, but in the future you could hopefully have a much larger audience

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

YT's system that had messed up and not the legal system.

Oh the legal system is very much messed up, YouTube tried to put a bandage in it. You have to consider that usually you would need a full personalized legal contract for each piece of copyrighted material you use. Content id tries to automate the process, but it's not perfect.

A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.

Which is what happens with patents today. The company holding the patent rarely also physical produces the drug, they usually have "manufacturing agreements" expecially in geographic far markets; where they let a second company make the drug with the company holding the patent on it and they are free to sell it in exchange for a percentage of the label price.

That's also what happened with vaccines and many other medications, it's like the standard procedure lol

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

Ok but how other people will know I replied to a comment or posted if the community on the original server is down?

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

Look at this.

It's just a single example, there are endless songs which are samples of samples of samples... Once in a while YouTube content id will have some problems as it's not perfect. It doesn't mean the system is fundamentally flawed. Like saying every car on the planet is cursed because once you got a flat tyre.

Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

Pay attention because the alternative to patents is not a "free for all" approach , it's industrial secrecy. As research is still very much expensive for entities to carry out.

Set aside than, no, extra research benefits everyone in the society as new cures for diseases are discovered faster and medicine evolve organically. Patents were the compromise to ensure companies could monetize their research while sharing their knowledge, are there other possible equilibrium? Sure, but we still have to remember we live in the real world, you can't have a cake and eat it

[-] AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago

between one buyer with fairly limited funds and few large corporations with extensive funds

Which is the same as saying that every vote is transferred between one voter, with very limited knowledge and political awareness and a few politicians with extensive power because politics is what they do their entire life.

Democracy is, in many practical sense, a market for votes. One which is way less regulated than the one for goods and services

view more: ‹ prev next ›

AbsolutelyNotABot

joined 1 year ago