Rottcodd

No, it’s not the same.

You’re only describing what would happen at the instance level, and skipping over the fact that the whole thing hinges on your identity on each and every instance actually being one and only one identity that would reside in one particular place. It would actually exist on, and be federated from, one particular server somewhere.

What that means, and the part you’re leaving out, is that whoever controlled that server would control your access to the fediverse as a whole - not just on one particular instance, which is the reality with instance-specific identities, but on all instances of all services.

The only way to avoid putting control over your access to the fediverse as a whole in the hands of one company would be to maintain your server on your own hardware, and as the article itself notes, most people can’t or won’t do that. So most people will end up with their identity on all instances of all services under the control of one specific company. Which is very much NOT the case now.

Now, if someone wants to somehow use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose - either maliciously or simply as a goad with which to extract profit from me - they’re necessarily limited to one identity on one instance of one service because that’s as high as it goes. They might, for instance, hijack or disable or demand a subscription fee for access to my .world identity, which resides on .world’s server. All that would mean to me though is that that one particular identity on that one particular instance would be compromised. I could still access the fediverse, and even access .world, just by coming in through my kbin identity or my lemm.ee identity or my .ml identity or whatever, since all of those are out of their control.

With this scheme, if someone wants to use their control over my fediverse access for some self-serving purpose, they have one specific place to do it - at the one specific server on which my identity is hosted and from which my identity is federated. With one move, they could hijack or disable or restrict extort payment for my access to ALL instances of ALL services, all at once.

Again, that is very much NOT the case today.

What you seem to be against is forcing you to have only one login. That does go against the model we are talking about.

And it isn’t what’s being suggested.

Yes - that isn’t what’s being suggested. And that’s entirely irrelevant.

The correct way to measure the threat a proposal poses isn’t by what’s specifically being proposed, but by what the proposal, if enacted, carries with it - what it necessitates, implies or even just allows.

As I mentioned before, and this seems to me to be the biggest potential threat vector, unless people host their identities on their own hardware, that information is going to be on someone else’s hardware. And that’s not going to be a charity - it’s going to be a business, that’s going to profit off of it somehow. If this proposal goes through and is relatively widely adopted, there will one day be an industry leader in the identity-hosting business, and that company will have leverage over the fediverse as a whole. And at that point it would be easy enough for them to, for instance, strike a deal with the biggest instances so that the instances, in the name of security or convenience or whatever might suffice, only accept registrations through that particular service.

I’m not saying that that will happen - only that it could. And that’s enough, in my estimation, to make it a bad idea, because if the history of the internet has shown us anything, it’s that if there’s a way for someone to control something and profit off of it, someone will control it and profit off of it, and the original proposal that made that possible doesn’t mean a damned thing.

Nothing about this idea implies centralization.

It’s a single identity that would be used to log in to all relevant sites. How is that not “centralized?”

There is no reason identity has to be tied to the platform using the identity

The reason I prefer that is that then that identity is specific and limited - it’s not me on all sites, but just me on that site. Me on another site is an entirely separate identity.

…and no reason why there needs to be a central identity store.

But with this, there is, for all intents and purposes, a central identity “store.” That’s how it would work - I provide whatever ID is used as a trigger and then the site would access “my” “store.” And presumably that would be an ongoing process, since another of the things that’s being floated is the ability to essentially federate all of my content across instances.

And all of that is going to have to be hosted somewhere, and if I don’t use my own hardware, then it’s going to be hosted on someone else’s hardware, and that means that they - not I - ultimately have control over it. Sure, they can promise that I maintain full control, but that can, as has happened far too many times in the history of the internet, just be a lie.

Granted that that’s the case currently too, again, it’s decentralized. Each individual instance just has control over my identity on that instance - not over my identity fediverse-wide.

In fact, right now my identity IS centralized to lemmy.world and I have no control over that.

Only your lemmy.world identity, which isn’t you.

Is that the part I’m missing? I still don’t understand what the supposed problem is in the first place. Is it that you feel that your lemmy.world identity is in fact “you?” Like that particular online identity is identical to your actual real world self, so not being able to use one and only one identity throughout the fediverse is existentially unsettling?

I’m still trying, and failing, to understand how this is a supposed problem in the first place.

Anyway, only your lemmy.world identity is (by a stretch of the term) “centralized,” and only to lemmy.world, and I guess to whoever it federates with. But that’s not you - that’s just one internet handle, for one site.

And the worst that can happen is that lemmy.world does something shady, in which case you can just create another identity at another site. And that last, as I understand it, was always the central point of decentralization - to make it so that harm that might be done was limited to only the one instance on which it was done, and couldn’t permanently harm the broader fediverse or an individual’s access to it.

Having one central identity though means that any harm done to or through that identity is done throughout the fediverse, and to the affected individual on all instances. That seems like a recipe for trouble, and seems to be directly contrary to the ideal of decentralization.

Your solution to create as many identities as you want is great for avoiding having one identity, but not an example of decentralized identity.

How is it not? My identity on the fediverse is spread around multiple accounts on multiple instances. That’s about as “decentralized” as it gets.

Yes - each identity is tied to a specific instance, so can be said to be “central” to that instance, but again, all that means is that that one instance can potentially cause me harm on that one instance. The rest of my identities are out of their control.

So with this single identity scheme, imagine that it’s somehow compromised or violated or held for ransome or whatever. That affects every single individual account I have throughout the fediverse. While with the way I currently do things, all it could ever do is affect the one account I have on one instance, and dealing with it would be just as easy as avoiding or closing that account. All the rest of my accounts, and my fediverse access broadly, would remain entirely unaffected.

How is that not the better alternative, and much more to the point, more in keeping with the ideal of decentralization?

“If you’re thinking of taking the tribe cross-country, this is the automobile you should be using - the Wagonqueen Family Truckster!”

Just imagine you go to a fediverse site, click “log in with ActivityPod”

It makes me nauseous just thinking about it.

That’s where the whole thing went wrong. When things started getting centralized, the internet started turning into a walled, commodified, ad-infested, bot-generated shithole controlled by a handful of loathsome megacorporations.

That’s exactly the sort of shit I want to get away from, and I rhought that getting away from that sort of shit was the exact point of ActivityPub.

Privacy would also increase because you could control every aspect of you identity

I don’t think that’s true.

I see no possible way that a centralized identity can be more private that an array of separate ones. And rather obviously, with a centralized identity, you don’t control every aspect of it, because it’s an established fact - when you go to a new site and sign up with that identity, it is exactly and only what it’s already been established to be, and it’s immediately tied in with all the others that use the same identity.

On the other hand, when I go to a new site and create a new identity from scratch - one that only exists on that site - I actually do control every aspect of my identity. It’s whatever I make it right there on the spot, and it shares exactly as much or as little detail with my other identities as I want it to.

Granted that I’m very cynical, I just can’t escape the feeling that all of this is cover for the real goal, which is simply to centralize the fediverse, so that a new group of opportunists can squat on top of another piece of the internet and extract rent from ir. We’re being told that this “problem” needs to be “solved” because “solving” it will, so they hope, create the next Google.

Serious question - why is this considered a problem? I don’t get it.

It doesn’t seem to be for convenience, since you’d still have to sign up for and sign in to different sites separately (which is obviously unavoidable - the alternative would be centralization, which is exactly what we’re trying to get away from).

Is it an ego thing? So that people can conveniently establish a sort of identity brand in the fediverse? Is it all about accomodating would-be influencers?

Or is it some sort of psychological thing? Like people just feel uncomfortable with separate identities spread around the fediverse? Like they’re somehow disjointed and fragile?

I can’t make sense of it. I have easily a dozen accounts spread around the fediverse, mostly but not all under the same name, and I have no issue with that. I don’t see a problem that needs to be solved. To the contrary, if anything, I’m wary of the idea of consolidating them - that just feels too much like moving back to centralization, just by a different scheme.

I just don’t get it.

Sort of.

More it’s just the way I’ve pretty much always been. Before I was even really aware of it, I apparently figured out that I couldn’t control the outside world but I could control how I reacted to it, so that was what I focused on. One could sort of say that I did it simply because it made sense to me, but even that makes it sound more conscious than it was. It’s more that it just never occurred to me to do things any other way.

It was only much later that I discovered that there was a philosophy called “stoicism” that advocated that.

“You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this and you will find strength.” - Marcus Aurelius

I recognize that the universe is so vast that it’s likely that life forms other than us exist in it, but that’s the extent of it.

I’ve seen no verifiable evidence that they in fact do, so I don’t “believe” that they do.

Really, I don’t “believe” in much of anything for which there is no verifiable evidence. I don’t even understand how that works - how it is that other people apparently do. It’s not a conscious choice or anything - it’s just appears that there’s a set of requirements that must be met before the position of “belief” is triggered inside my mind, and one of those requirements is verifiable evidence. Without that, the state of “believing” just isn’t triggered, and it’s not as if I can somehow force it, so that’s that.

As far as I can see, governments are comprised almost entirely of psychopaths, opportunists, charlatans and fools, so I see little likelihood that they possess concealed knowledge regarding any nominal extraterrestrial life. First, and most simply, if they did possess any such knowledge, it’s near certain that somebody would’ve blabbed something by now.

Beyond that though, I think it’s exceedingly unlikely that any alien life form capable of traveling interstellar distances would, on arriving on the Earth, seek out contact with a government, much less limit its contact to a government. If they’re that advanced, it can only be the case that they, in their own development, either never bought into the flatly ludicrous and clearly destructive idea of institutionalized authority or overcame it before it inevitably destroyed them, and in either case, I don’t see any reason why they would lend any credence to our mass delusion that this one subset of humanity forms a specially qualified and empowered elite that rightly oversees everyone else’s interests. That’s our delusion - not theirs.

The other answers mostly sum it up - it was initially made illegal primarily as a way to establish an “other” with which to frighten conservatives.

There’s another thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet though that I’ve long thought is relevant - is part of the reason that marijuana specifically was for so long (and still is in some quarters) so condemned.

Imagine you’re a corrupt politician, and you want to sell your constituents on the idea of going to war in the Middle East (so you can collect some bribes from defense contractors and oil companies) or instituting mandatory sentencing (so you can collect some bribes from prison contractors) or cutting taxes on the wealthy (so you can collect bribes from rich people and corporations) or any of the other, similar things that corrupt politicians want to do

Who would you rather try selling that idea to? A bunch of pot smokers or a bunch of drinkers?

I think part of the issue is that marijuana appeals to a part of the population that really is, to corrupt politicians and their cronies and patrons, “undesirable.” When they want to get the people all fired up in support of their latest bullshit, they want somebody with a beer in their hand, drunkenly shouting, “Yeah! Kick their asses!” Not somebody with a joint in their hand, muzzily saying, “Hold on a minute - you want to do what?”

Right, but it’s not a paradox - it’s a conundrum. It’s not just that the person saying it is part of the first group, but that they necessarily are.

Since people want to believe that they “know better,” there’s a strong urge to count oneself among the second group, which immediately places one in the first.

There are two kinds of people in the world - those who think there are two kinds of people in the world and those who know better.

What “entitlement?”

I don’t expect anyone to start a web site or service or to give me or anyone else access to it at all, much less for free.

I’m just making the very narrow point that when a company chooses to do all of that, and manages to make enough money to build a plush corporate headquarters on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay its executives millions or even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then starts crying about not making enough money, that’s self-evident bullshit.

If anybody’s acting"entitled" in that scenario, it’s the greedy corporate weasels who spend billions on their own privilege, then expect us to cover their asses when they come up short.

I expect a wave of internet users to get upset and call paying for used services “enshittification”, because people don’t realise how much running these AI models actually costs.

I am so tired of this bullshit. Every time I’ve turned around, for the past thirty years now, I’ve seen some variation on this same basic song and dance.

Yet somehow, in spite of supposedly being burdened with so much expense and not given their due by a selfish, ignorant public, these companies still manage to build plush offices on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay eight- or even nine-figure salaries to a raft of executive parasites.

When they start selling assets and cutting executive salaries, or better yet laying them off, then I’ll entertain the possibility that they need more revenue. Until then, fuck 'em.

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true.

How did you not get my point?

We’ll try it this way:

Thirty people live in a town.

Ten of them, with a leader, want some policy implemented

Twenty of them oppose the policy.

The ten with a leader organize and push for the policy

The twenty who oppose it stand around with their thumbs up their asses, each of them telling themselves that they can’t accomplish anything by themselves.

The policy gets implemented

Or

The ten with a leader organize and push for a policy.

The twenty who oppose it each, individually, pull their thumbs out of their asses and stand up and say they oppose it.

Each of those individuals, making their individual choices, finds themselves surrounded by nineteen other individuals who made the same individual choice.

They easily outnumber the ten who want the policy and the policy fails.

That’s exactly how and why individuals going ahead and making their individual choices instead of failing to do it because “I can’t make a difference by myself” can make a difference.

All they have to do is stop waiting around for somebody to lead them, pull their thumbs out of their asses, and just go ahead and do it on their own, each one as an individual.

the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion.

And some number of those workers have the exact same opinion that you do - they’re opposed, but they don’t think they can make a difference.

And if all of you stopped waiting around for some charismatic leader to tell you what to do and just went ahead and made the choice you prefer, you would make a difference.

No - it’s not ethical.

Very little evil is actually a direct result of evil people doing evil things. The vast majority of it comes to be through ordinary people doing banal things - things that, like building weapons, are questionable at best, but that they excuse because it’s “out of my control.”

The thing is that it’s not out of their control. Yes - if one individual makes the decision to not take part, that’s not going to have much of an effect, but if every person who feels the same way makes that same choice, that absolutely WILL have an effect.

And there’s only one way to make it so that every person who feels the same way makes that choice, and that’s for each one of them, individually, to look past that “it’s out of my control” bullshit excuse and go ahead and do it.

Everything on any significant scale is out of individual control. Individuals just possess a very limited amount of control over affairs on a national, much less global, scale. But that’s really entirely beside the point. The point is how you choose to exercise the small amount of control you have. Will you use it for good, or for evil?

I don’t think it’s worse, but that’s only because, as far as responses from trolls and bad faith actors go, I’d rather get screeds from lunatic extremists than pseudo-leftist establishment dogma boiled down to little pieces of emotive rhetoric that are just mindlessly regurgitated over and over by bots and humans-who-might-as-well-be-bots.

This behaviour makes you and by extension mbin seem like a bunch of unhinged petty drama queens.

Personally, there’s already absolutely no way I’m ever going to use mbin, no matter what, just because these people nauseate me.

deleted by creator