I'd like people to STOP PRETENDING that the only plausible reason why someone doesn't agree with this is that we don't understand it. Yes, I understand what this does. The browser tracks which advertisements have been visited, the advertiser indicates to the browser when a conversion action happens, and the browser sends this information to a third-party aggregator which uses differential techniques to make it infeasible to deanonymise specific users. Do I get a pass?

Yes, this is actively collaborating with advertising. It is, in the words of Mozilla, useful to advertisers. It involves going down a level from being tracked by remote sites to being tracked by my own browser, running on my own machine. Setting aside the issues of institutional design and the possibility for data leaks, it's still helping people whose business is to convince me to do things against my interest, to do so more effectively.

I don't blame Mozilla for not single-handedly ending advertising online. That's too much to expect from anyone. But they could at least avoid active collaboration with the enterprise. And if they're going to engage in it, they should at the very least warn their users.

I don't have a complete solution, but I have a vector, and this is in the opposite direction, being, according to its own claims useful to advertisers.

The solution passes through many things, but probably has to start by changing the perception of advertising as a necessary nuisance and into a needless, avoidable, and unacceptable evil. Collaboration does not help in this regard. Individual actions such as blocking advertising, refusing to accept any tracking from sites, deploying masking tools, using archives and mirrors to get content, consciously boycott any product that manages to escape the filtering, are good but insufficient.

Whatever opinion you may have of advertising as an economic model, it’s a powerful industry that’s not going to pack up and go away.

Fuck that. Not if we don't make it. That's precisely the point. Do not comply. Do not submit. Never. Advertising is contrary to the interests of humanity. You're never going to convince me becoming a collaborator for a hypothetically less pernicious form is the right course of action. Never. No quarter.

We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this,

That makes it even worse.

any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers,

And therefore inimical to humanity in general and users in particular.

Digital advertising is not going away,

Not with that attitude.

but the surveillance parts could actually go away

Aggregate surveillance is still surveillance. It is still intrusive, it still leverages aggregate human behaviour in order to harm humans by convincing them to do things against their own interest and in the interest of the advertiser.

This is supposedly an experiment. You've decided to run an experiment on users without consent. And you still think this is the right thing--since you claim the default is the correct behaviour.

I cannot trust this.

It's hard when I don't get told about it and find by chance.

Yes, for example I donate to thunderbird since I find it useful. And I wouldn't mind donating to Firefox either provided they wouldn't do this sort of fuckery.

though in the long run we need to overturn capitalism of course, and that an economic model is viable doesn't mean we should sustain it or justify it.

It depends, but mostly no. And if that means some sites are not economically possible, so be it.

This is bullshit. The total amount of advertising I want is zero. The total amount I want of tracking is zero. The total amount of experiments I want run on my data without consent is, guess, zero.

Count me in. Fight for what, decide which capitalist exploits me? Not interested.

There's an entire political party built around it and you think people can't talk about it openly?

Definitely, AP is not magic. But if even within one protocol round-tripping and full-fidelity is impossible or very difficult, that makes it only harder and less likely through a bridge.

IMO bridging or translation isn't federation per se. Also it seems unlikely that protocols would converge to that extent. In fact AP implementations are already different enough that even within the same protocol it's hard to represent all the different activities instances can present.

I wouldn't really count Mastodon/Bluesky bridging as federation. They're incompatible protocols that were never intended to work together (arguably Bluesky was explicitly designed to avoid using AP).

For me the weirdest part of the interview is where he says he doesn't want to follow anyone, that he wants the algorithm to just pick up on his interests. It's so diametrically opposed to how I want to intentionally use social networks and how the fedi tends to work that it's sometimes hard to remember there are people who take that view.

Kind of interesting, especially on the diagnosis of the problem. The proposed solutions seem way out there, though, as one might expect from the founder of Blackwater.

Edit: Needless to say, I have no desire for imperialism to become more effective. But even in its own terms, the pro-market, private sector stuff is really odd and doesn't explain how all those rivals and enemies are doing so much better.

Can't happen soon enough.

Very informative. On paragraphs 61 and following, it clearly explains why the Israeli claims on human shields are improper and how attacks are not maintaining the principles of proportionality, distinction, and so on.

Ah, that does seem like it will solve the problem. Thanks!

Not sure I understand. What I'm trying to do is something like this:

• Poll a stream which takes fedi events. Read player commands.
• If an event comes from a known player, check which match they are into.
• With that info, get their opponents/coplayers etc and perform the change of state in the game (send replies, next turn, etc).

So what I have as a key is a player name (AP username) and from that I need to find which match they're in.

There's nothing semantically useful about a match ID.

Thanks, the RC is a possible approach. It seems to violate DRY a bit but maybe there's no way around it.

The reason I had the players outside the match is that I need them there anyway, because when I get a player action I need to check in which match they are, who are their opponent(s) and so on. So even if they're in, they'll have to be out too as there are concurrent matches and the player actions come all through the same network stream.