The term "social media" is already toxic. When I started using the Internet, socialising and media were two separate things. Conflating the two implies that every time we say something, we are publishing an article and should care about how many views and likes we get, instead of making a genuine attempt at connection. And it suggests that every reply should be some kind of review of the post it replies to.
In the days of forums, people would just post what came into mind. They were more honest because there was no number next to your comment rating how good it was.
Browsers should be designed from the start for the benefit of the users. There are too many "features" that only benefit the server owners. It's been this way for a long time. Like the "Referer" header. Old as dirt, but how do I benefit from telling a server what page I was visiting beforehand?
Client-side scripting is a hack. HTML didn't have all the tags people wanted or needed, so instead of carefully updating it to include new features, they demanded that browsers just execute arbitrary code on the user's computer, and with that comes security vulnerabilities, excessive bandwidth use and a barrier-to-entry that makes it difficult to develop new browsers, giving one company a near-monopoly.
Quite the opposite in fact. Microtransactions offer the promise of fun, but never deliver, because in order to incentivise users to purchase them, the player must feel like the game is 90% of the way to being fun and that tiny additional purchase will get it there.
It's like the cartoon image of the donkey rider holding a carrot on the end of a rod. The donkey keeps moving to try to get the carrot, but never quite reaches it.
Quite the opposite in fact. Microtransactions offer the promise of fun, but never deliver, because in order to incentivise users to purchase them, the player must feel like the game is 90% of the way to being fun and that tiny additional purchase will get it there.
It's like the cartoon image of the donkey rider holding a carrot on the end of a rod. The donkey keeps moving to try to get the carrot, but never quite reaches it.
Besides the trackers and malware, ads can be categorised as a flaw in technology. A kind of software parasite that uses a computer's resources without providing any additional functionality to the user.
The root of the issue is this idea that a web browser should be an "everything app" that can basically recreate the functionality of any other app on the system. It's total feature creep, and in addition to privacy issues, creates a barrier-to-entry that makes it very hard for people to create new browsers because of the sheer amount of features they're expected to implement.
Kind of, but with automation. So if you trust site A 90%, and site A trusts site B 90%, then from your PoV, site B has 81% trust* (which you can choose to replace with your own trust rating, if you want).
Could have applications in building a new kind of search engine even.
I'm just guessing how the maths would work, it probably requires a little more sophisticated system that that, such as starting sites at 50% and only increasing or decreasing the rating based on sites you already trust.
Perhaps some kind of fediweb that allows sites to rank other sites for trustworthiness. Then as a user you mark a few sites as trusted, and use their judgement to find more sites.
Got me thinking about how YouTubers get money. According to a quick web search, YT pays $0.01 to $0.03 per view. So if you release 10 videos a month, you made $0.10 per viewer. But Patreon memberships are typically around $5.00 a month, equivalent to $0.50 per view in the same scenario. Of course Patreon will take a cut, but it is still a lot more money.
So, if a lot of your viewers think your channel is good enough to donate to, ad money basically becomes an afterthought. In this case, the only advantage of YT over PT is discovery, i.e. the number of viewers likely to find your videos in the first place (but there's also more competition on YT, so...)
Does that affect interaction? Perhaps this is a difference between platforms? When I signed up to PieFed, I chose some interests and it automatically subscribed me to various communities, some of which had the same name but different instances (for example five different communities named "Games"). I don't know much about how community discovery works on any of these platforms to be honest.
Well, on Reddit people often do create new communities for the same topic because they don't like the rules/culture/mods of the original one. So would you say that's the same reason for choosing a different community on the Fediverse?
I'm not trying to make any argument either way, I'm just curious why people made the choices they did. For example, I saw someone from lemmy.world posted on programmer_humor@programming.dev even though programmerhumor@lemmy.world also exists. I'm wondering how they chose the first option over the second.
You can view and post in channels on other instances from your home instance without switching. For example, I'm commenting from piefed.social