Even if they have the source, they may not have all the build tools anymore.

Or they have the build tools but the wizard that set up the build system back in the day no longer works there.

Or they have the build system archived and documented but it doesn’t run because some license expired, and the tool vender doesn’t sell that version anymore.

In the near future, there will be another possibility - SaaS cloud tools that are impossible to preserve so they are forever lost.

They’re trying to bring Must Carry rules for cable TV to the internet.

This whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. If the issue is the preview that facebook/google show next to the links then it should already be covered by copyright law. If they want to charge for links without preview then that’s just plain wrong.

The way it targets corporations with more bargaining power than the news industry is also weird. Why does bargaining power matter? Is it because the news industry intends to extract payments from everyone later and they want to give the big tech companies no incentive to come to the smaller players’ defense? Keep in mind that the biggest news orgs are big corporations themselves. Or is it written this way just to avoid naming facebook and google directly?

I gave the bill a quick read.

It depends on the contents of the link. Is it a bare URL? Is it a text “click here”? Is it the title of the linked page? Is it a snippet of the linked page? You can quickly see how linking can incorporate copying depending on how it’s done.

I consider snippets copying, not linking, but let’s agree to disagree on the terminology, because the bill covers anything from URLs to snippets anyway.

significant bargaining power imbalance

This is what the bill actually says, so we’re small fish and get a free ride.

It’s not clear which “Chinese” he said. There are different words in Chinese for Chinese nationals and ethnic Chinese but both are translated to “Chinese” in English.

Linking is very different from downloading or copying. A link is only a reference to the content, not the content itself. The news site retains full control over the content. If the news site wants to make more money from visitors, they can use ads or paywalls.

And of course it wouldn’t be Lemmy, the app, paying. Maybe not even Lemmy, the instance owner, or the poster since neither of them are profiting from that linking.

What if an instance is getting enough donations to be considered profitable? Drawing the line at profitability just punishes success and efficiency.

BTW a lot of posts in c/canada have snippets copied from the linked articles. How is this any different from FB and google showing links and snippets?

Combined toilet-sinks are a thing. It saves water by reusing the water you used to wash your hands to flush the toilet.

You can download everything in your account with google takeout

It all depends on how the other instance responds.

• If their admin don’t want to do anything about users causing problems in other instances then I’d say defederate temporarily (1 month or more) each time their users break our rules.
• If their admin actively encourages this kind of behaviour then defederate permanently.
• If they have rules against bad behaviour on other instances and non-negligible consequences for violations then try to work with them, but still defederate temporarily (~1 week) when our/their moderation team can’t keep up.

I should clarify. When the skinheads from the Nazi house down the street come over to visit, they must follow our instance-wide and community rules. This should be a basic fediquette for everyone. If they repeatedly fail to do that then we will have to defederate them. But if they check the swastika at the door and keep the Nazism to themselves while they’re here, I don’t see why not. Most of the calls for defederation so far have been about people not wanting to see activities happening on remote communities on certain instances.

Nay for now. While there’s a few communities on lemmygrad that I want to see like Late Stage Capitalism, lemmygrad has been defederated since day one, and all of us (should) have known this when we joined, so there’s no hurry to refederate with them.

The real solution is for Lemmy to let users block instances from their own view, then all the defederation discussions will be moot. When that happens, we should do as you proposed - federate as much as permitted by law.

Nay. You’re gonna encounter these people IRL. It’s better to prepare yourself in a low stake environment like an internet forum.

I store my clothes in a stack, and I usually wear the same few pieces until the season changes.

I don’t like the idea of coalitions at all. To me it feels like the coalitions would become very “us vs them”, i.e. you must defederate all instances that allow any topic in this list or we will defederate you. It leaves no neutral ground, creates echo chambers, and deepens the political divide that plagues our society.

IMO it’s better if

1. Lemmy allows individual users to block all communities from an instance or all users from an instance, sort of like defederation but per-user.
2. Instances have the rule that “when you interact with other instances/communities, you must follow all their rules, or we will suspend your cross-instance posting rights for X days”.

Then instances can act like neutral infrastructure/identity providers and each user can decide exactly how they want to interact with the fediverse without causing fragmentation.

Let’s wait for per-user instance filters to be implemented, then everyone can block instances to taste. As long as their users don’t cause trouble in our communities, there’s no need for our instance to act as a moral guardians and decide what our users can and cannot see. Defederation is a nuclear option that should only be done if their instance is disrupting our instance’s operation (spamming and breaking rules while in our communities).

I like that sh.itjust.works currently federates with almost everyone, and I can see a big part of the fediverse from here. It would suck having to visit multiple instance to see the whole fediverse.

What you’re describing is no longer federation but full P2P. From a purely technical point of view, it may work, but the biggest problem will be abuse (spam, excessive resource use, illegal content). When a new instance shows up, how do you know if it’s a spammer or not? And if an instance is blocked by another instance, whose side should you be on?

This is true. If you run the reddit-grab project directly without using the warrior (sudo docker run -d --name reddit --label=com.centurylinklabs.watchtower.enable=true --restart=unless-stopped atdr.meo.ws/archiveteam/reddit-grab --concurrent 6 yourname), you can set up to --concurrent 20, and some projects do work well with higher concurrent, but not reddit. 6 is already pushing the limit.

I’m running reddit-grab on 25 VMs on azure (trying to burn my $200 free credit that expires in 10 days) and I can only run --concurrent 4 safely on most of them. The only VMs that can run --concurrent 6 are the ones in India, which seem to be soft-ratelimited by their higher latency anyway.

I haven’t tried one, but I probably won’t like it, because I often type with one hand as my other hand is busy or dirty, and having to learn what’s basicallly another layout is too much.

I think the biggest cost will be image/video storage. The text takes very little space in today’s standards. The good thing is that symmetric fibre internet connections are becoming more common so it may be possible for members of the instance to contribute unused disk space to help with its image/video storage. This plus limiting the image/video sizes (and maybe forbidding video uploads altogether) will allow the instances to scale with user count.