Bluesky is the new Orkut! ;-)
5,111 karma · joined August 14, 2010
When you say "on current platforms", I presume you mean on existing social media.
No, that isn't a solution. There's a reason advertising dollars eschew platforms without curation, and they're the one paying for it. Similarly, the people choosing the platform are choosing it because of the curation.
If you don't like it, you're going to have to pay for your own platform and convince other people to participate in it. Good luck.
I think maybe we're talking past each other. What I'm saying what people "want" is a reflection of the overwhelming choices they make. They're choosing the curated environments.
The "problem" that is being referenced is the curation. The claim is that the curation is a problem; my observation is that it is the solution all the parties involved seem to want, because they could, at any time, choose otherwise.
Read that again. ;-)
> Most people these days don't (arguably never) understand files and folders.
We can debate on the skills of "most people" back and forth, but I think it's fair to say that "save as web content" is easier to figure out than figuring out how to navigate a social media site (and that doesn't necessarily require files or folders). If that really is too hard for someone, there are products out there designed to make it even easier. Way back before social media took over, everyone and their dog managed to figure out how to put stuff on the web. People who couldn't make it through high school were successfully producing web pages, blogs, podcasts, video content, you name it.
> I'm going to stop you right here: You are vastly overestimating both the will and the computer-aptitude of most people.
I disagree. I think they don't have the will to do it, because they'd rather use social media. I do believe if they had the will to do it, they would. I agree there are some people who lack the computer-aptitude to get content on the web. Where I struggle is believing those same people manage to put content on social media... which I'll point out is on the web.
> There is a reason Youtube and Twitch have killed off literally every other video sharing service
Yes, because video sharing at scale is fairly difficult and requires real skill. If you don't have that skill, you're going to have to pay someone to do it, or find someone who has their own agenda that makes them want to do it without charging you... like Youtube or Twitch.
On the other hand, putting a video up on the web that no one knows about, no one looks for, and no one consumes unless you personally convince them to do so is comparatively simple.
> there is a reason smartphones killed off personal computers (desktops and to a lesser degree laptops)
Yes, that reason is that smartphones were subsidies by carriers. ;-)
But it's good that you mentioned smartphones, because smart phones will let you send content to anyone in your contacts without you having anything that most would describe as "computer-aptitude". No social media needed... and yet the prevailing preference is for people to go through a process of logging in, shaping content to suit the demands of social media services, attempting to tune the content to get "the algorithm" to show it to as many people as possible, and put their content there. That takes more will/aptitude/whatever, but they do it for the distribution/audience.
> Social media became the juggernaut it is today because businesses figured out how to capitalize on the latent demand for easy sharing of information: Literal One Click Solutions(tm) that anyone can understand.
I'd agree with you if you said "distribute" instead of "sharing". It's really hard to get millions of people to consume your content. That is, until social media came along and basically eliminated the cost of distribution. So any idiot can push their content out to millions and fill the world with whatever they want.... and now there's a sense of entitlement about it, where if a platform doesn't push that content on other people, at no cost to them, that they're being censored.
Yup, that does really require social media.
> The internet and more specifically search engines in general have always been that distribution platform. The only thing that changed in the last 30 years is how easy it is to get your stuff on that platform.
No, the Internet & the web required you to go looking for the content you wanted. Search engines (at least at one time) were designed to accelerate that proces of find exactly the content you were looking for faster, and get you off their platform ASAP. Social media is kind of the opposite of search engines. They want you to stay on their platform; they want you to keep scrolling at whatever "engaging" content they can find, regardless of what you're looking for; if you forget about whatever you were originally looking for, that's a bonus. It's that ability to have your content show up when no one is looking for it where social media provides an advantage over the web for content makers.
I'm saying the choice exists. The choices we make are the problem.
In a democracy, when the government fails, you can vote it out and get a new one... and you get as many votes as a person with 100x your spending power. In the free market, a business that effectively serves a specific market can thrive despite absolutely abysmal performance for the rest of the market. It's not unusual for a business to be better off if they can get rid of certain customers, because they're a net cost to the business. So they have every incentive to be as hostile as possible to those "customers".
> With Medicaid you dont have an option, and the govt program, unlike IG or Costco, will never go out of business due to poor business services
It's not like the poor and indigent have a lot of influence over IG & Costco either. ;-)
You'll notice that Medicaid and Medicare have different levels of service. There's a reason for that (not a very pleasant one). There are different levels of service between Medicaid to discount private health insurance (particularly pre-ACA private health insurance), and the comparison makes Medicaid look pretty good. Go compare this case to the cases against private health insurers, and then tell me that private health insurance works out better.
Who says you need to procure a web hosting provider?
But yes, if you connect your computer up to other computers, the other computers may decide they don't want any part of what you have to offer.
Without that, I wouldn't want to be in the Internet. I don't want to be forced to ingest bytes from anyone who would send them my way. That's just not a good value proposition for me.
> That's because most people do not have neither the time nor the will to learn and speak computer.
I'm sorry, but no. You can literally type in to a word processor or any number of other tools and select "save as web content", and then use any number of products to take a web page and serve it up to the world wide web. It's been that way for the better part of 25 years. No HTML or CSS knowledge needed. If you can't handle that you can just record a video, save it to a file, and serve it up over a web server. Yes, you need to be able to use a computer to participate on the world wide web, but no more than you do to use social media.
Now, what you won't get is a distribution platform that gets your content up in front of people who never asked for it. That is what social media provides. It lowers the effort for the people receiving the content, as in exactly the curation process that the judge was ruling about.
The idea that curation is a problem with social media is always a head scratcher for me. The option to just directly publish to the world wide web without social media is always available, but time and again, that option is largely not chosen... this ruling could well narrow it down that being the only option.
Now, in practice, I don't think that will happen. This will raise the costs of operating social media, and those costs will be reflected in prices advertisers pay to advertise on social media. That may shrink the social media ecosystem, but what it will definitely do is raise the draw bridge over the moat around the major social media players. You're going to see less competition.
...and either way, that's kernel lock contention, not blocking IO.
That's not true. For one things, it is expensive. For another, there's a chance people will find out and you'll lose all your criminal customers... they might even seek retribution.
> I bet that if they really asked, they pretty much asked Telegram to build them one click creator that would print them court ready documents about criminals on their platform so that law enforcement can just click a button and yell "we got one!" to the judge.
You seem to believe, without having looked at the publicly available facts of the matter, that the problem is law enforcement didn't say "pretty please". The fact of the matter is that they've refused proper law enforcement requests repeatedly; if anyone has been rude about it, it's been Durov.
The second amendment gives weapon makers some extra protection in the US, but they do have to be very careful about what they do and do not do in order to avoid going to jail.
> They must know a percentage of their products are going to be used to commit crimes. A much larger percentage than those using Telegram to commit one.
Do you have the stats on that? I don't, but I'm curious. While I don't doubt the vast majority of people using Telegram aren't committing a crime, I know that the vast majority of people using guns also aren't committing a crime.
The usual metaphor is child pornography, but let's pick something less outrageous: espionage. If a spy uses your messaging platform to share their secrets without being detected & prevented, that's using the service to commit a crime. Now, if you're making a profit from said service, that doesn't necessarily make you a criminal, but if you start saying "if spies used this platform, they'd never be stopped or even detected", that could get you in to some serious trouble. If you send a sales team to the KGB to encourage them to use the platform, even more so.
Except it's a limitation that shows up even if you never make an mmap call. It's just a reality of living with virtual memory (and arguably, with preemptive based kernel scheduling in general as the kernel can decide to context switch from a thread).
> Traditional async I/O engines use direct I/O on locked memory, and if you use async you need to be cognizant of why this is. Half the point of async is to have explicit control and knowledge of when page faults are scheduled. Async is a power tool, not something that should be used lightly for casual tasks nor accidentally pulled in as a dependency.
Cooperative multitasking, to avoid the stalling described in this article, also needs locked memory/explicit control/knowledge of when page faults are scheduled.
> Async is used heavily in some C/C++ domains but it doesn’t seem to cause many issues there, perhaps because dependencies are much more explicit and intentional. Async has also been idiomatic for certain domains in C/C++ for decades so there is an element of maturity around working with it.
It's more that the people in those domains have an understanding of cooperative multitasking's trade-offs, and it is an explicit design choice to employ it.
Either way, you're saying the MTProto is binary? How do you mean that?
...and of course there are also multi-process concurrency models, where even if a process were blocked, the other processes would not. So no, it does absolutely matter what combination of concurrency models you are using.
I would argue it is for a fundamental reason. Cooperative multitasking in user-space requires far less overhead than anything a kernel might do. It's just an explicit part of the trade-off: you get more efficient context switches and control when context can change, and in exchange you leave something on the table whenever the kernel is involved.
> So, whoever's fault this is, it's useful to have good evidence of this downside of async runtimes (and worth thinking about ways that OSs could let runtimes know when they were about to block on IO).
But it isn't specific to async runtimes (in fact, a kernel-based preemptively scheduled async runtime wouldn't have this problem). It's a problem specific to cooperative multitasking.
The MMU in the hardware is aggressively parallel, and the only thread being blocked on the page fault is the one touching the page that needs to be swapped in. In reality, you can get heavily parallelized IO using mmap (indeed, it works quite well when you have a ton of IO you'd like to execute in parallel).
I think the reality is that closed source software is vulnerable to the same attack, the only difference is fewer eyes to see it and more likely a profit motive will keep those eyes directed in other ways.
So I didn't think what I said was out of line. Obviously, I was mistaken.