Do you choose your friends and the folks you hang out with? Of course you do. Why should it be any different in the communities you patronize?

I came here because I was tired of suffering the morons on traditional social media platforms. The Fediverse is not perfect - nothing ever is - and it has its fair share of undesirables too, but it’s much better, and I’m not looking forward to the morons following me here and making things worse. They belong to Facebook and the likes, and they should stay there.

It won’t enshittify in the strict Doctorow sense. But it will become shittier as more people who are currently plaguing Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and making those platforms terrible discover the Fediverse and come splatter their cowpats here. That’s almost inevitable: it’s happened to just about anything that ever became popular.

Incidentally, that’s also a big part of the reason why it’s supremely important to boycott Threads and not let it federate: the Fediverse needs to grow, but it doesn’t need to grow with an influx of low-quality Facebook users.

I know it’s not specific to the Fediverse, but I recommend you watch this video from Fran Blanche: it’s eye-opening and a bit heart-breaking:

When Google calls you a slur

Fran Blanche is a genuinely kind person, a good engineer, and her career has been hobbled by rampant transphobia.

not all advertisement is the same

Yes it is.

Captchas were never about keeping bots out: they’ve always been an excuse to turn ordinary internet visitors into mechanical turks to tag photos to train AI systems without paying the workforce.

Think about it: how many hours total did you spend in your life tagging photos for Google and Google never paid you for your work?

Someone is making money off of the surveillance and that someone knows someone else in the board of education. That’s why it exists. It has nothing to do with sudent safety.

tl;dr: your money does not go to Google and the ppl you get it from would have purchased it anyway. The device just ends up in your hands instead of the land fill or being recycled

It all depends on how you look at it. You choose to see it as your money saving an object from the landfill, and I choose to follow the trail of my money going all the way to Google’s pocket ultimately.

But those two outlooks are not incompatible: they both hold true. You just choose to disregard the latter while I can’t get past it.

Really?

Say I buy a pack of gum at the supermarket. The supermarket got my $2. Then I resell the pack of gum to my neighbor for $1.50. Who do you think has my neighbor’s $1.50 in his pocket? Me or the supermarket?

Hint: it’s not me. I’m still down $0.50 from the moment before I bought the pack of gum. And even if I had sold it to my neighbor full price because it’s new and unopened, it’d like I never bought it in the first place and my neighbor did.

Nobody talked about Calyx

I did, and you replied to me 🙂

if you wanted to avoid anything primarily made by Google you’d have a Linux phone

That’s true.

Unfortunately that’s not possible: I live in a country that delegates secure authentication to banks, and banks only supply 2FA apps that work in Android or iOS. If I had a Linux phone, I’d still need another phone with Android just for the purpose of banking, interacting with social services, logging in my work hours, getting notifications from the post office…

That’s the misery of Android: Google is such a pervasive monopoly that even if you want a fully deGoogled OS, the basis of it has to be 95% made by Google anyway because the rest of society goes along and reinforces their monopoly. And at some point, even someone like me has to make compromises to simply live normally.

I would gladly buy a Linux phone and I’d even put up with their quirks (I tried one once so I know they’re not as polished an experience as Android). But I am also a practocal man and it’s just not an option.

I think GrapheneOS should come with a no-compromise-security branch that only supports Google Pixel phones and an “ordinary security” branch that supports a wide variety of less-secure but non-Google hardware for people who can’t stomach the idea of buying a Google phone.

GrapheneOS would reach a much wider audience, and not everybody needs perfect security. I for instance am a low-value target and I have no need for GrapheneOS-level security.

If you buy second-hand, you give money to Google.

Someone bought the phone the first time and gave their money to Google, and you reimbursed part of that money to that buyer. In the end, Google gets your money. Maybe not full brand-new retail price, but what you paid for your second-hand phone goes indirectly into Google’s coffers.

Buying anything Google, second-hand or not, supports Google’s business. Given the choice, I refuse to support Google in any way, shape or form.

Example Fairphone, which has horrible update schedules

Fairphone’s release schedule and Calix’ release schedules are two different things. CalyxOS is updated less often than GrapheneOS for sure, but it’s updated a lot more often than Fairphone OS.

I am aware of the shortcomings of my choice.

But my priority is to not give a cent to Google: what am I supposed to do then?

I argue that GrapheneOS gives Pixel phones more value, thereby supporting Google. That is not great.

And it still doesn’t support anything that isn’t a Pixel phone.

I respect GrapheneOS very much. But the fact that you need a Google phone to install a deGoogled Android ROM is one contradiction I just can’t get past. I hate Google and I’m never going to buy their hardware and give them money for the privilege of escaping the Google corporate surveillance.

I’m aware of the technical reason why GrapheneOS only supports Pixel phones, but that irony is just too rich for me. So I use CalyxOS on a very much non-Google FairPhone4, and while it’s formally slightly less secure than GrapheneOS, at least Google got none of my money and that’s a lot more important than security to me.

Pray tell, what possible benefit can Lemmy communities gain from Facebook users?

You do realize most people who joined the Fediverse did so because Facebook and the likes are a steaming pile of shit, right?

What possible benefit is there to the pile of shit coming to splatter itself here uninvited?

It’s not just a matter of blocking Threads users.

Facebook is coming on here to slurp up data I don’t want them to have, and enriching their own Threads ecosystem with Fediverse content they haven’t lifted a finger to create.

Not to mention, when Threads users are able to fully interact in the Fediverse, do you really want that particular bunch to create noise in your communities? I don’t. There’s a reason why I avoid Facebook in all its forms.

Great.
I joined the Fediverse to escape Facebook’s toxic interpretation of communities, so Facebook is coming to the Fediverse instead.
Just great…

This is all rather meaningless because we don’t know the demographics of those who answered: 5,101 US adults of what generations?

I’m pretty sure younger generations aren’t nearly as concerned about privacy as older folks who grew up before Big Data became the dystopian thing it is today (statistically that is, that’s not to say there aren’t privacy-conscious youngsters or recklless data-sharing old folks).

This survey looks like it was mostly answered by gen-Xers.

Well that’s one solution.

We wouldn’t do this because we have a policy of modifying as little as humanly possible on the target system, because of the nature of some of our customers: we may not have the right to modify stuff right and left willy-nilly on those customer’s systems, and if we do, we have to justify why with a lot of paperwork. So we don’t: we install our stuff in one very formal, very stable spot of the hard disk (on Windows, c:\Users<username>), install missing modules, stick an icon on the desktop and that’s it.

Historically, we also propose to install Python on the system if it’s missing (used to do that system-wide) and advise our customers to install it system-wide too if they did it themselves so we wouldn’t have to modify our installer (again, if we do, we have to justify the change when the customer is under configuration control, so we try to avoid change). Not anymore obviously.

So yeah, we wouldn’t install Miniconda just for the purpose of not changing our installers. At this point, that’s enough change that I can just rewrite the installers: either way, I’ll have to communicate the change to the customers, so I might as well do it right.

But my point was, if Python gracefully handled backward compatibility - as in, for example, you put in the shebang or near the shebang that you want the interpreter and pip to behave like, say, Python 3.10, and Python4.56 behaves like 3.10 did years later - then this is unnecessary work that I wouldn’t have to do.

I had to rewrite our installers and other things to deal with Python 3.12’s new forcibly-enforced kosher way ot doing things because it won’t do thing any other way and compatibility be damned. That’s my beef with Python: after all this time, it’s still unstable and prone to breaking existing codebases.

It’s a real problem for us and it has been for a long time: code that’s out there and working is liable to quit working when the Python interpreter changes. I have no idea how a 33-year-old language, ultra-widely used language such as Python is allowed to change regularly with little regard to backward compatibility like it was an early beta weekend project. This is truly unprofessional and it completely boggles my mind.