💩 🫘
So I guess if I want to pay for my VPS with crypto I am a criminal? Good work cyber sleuths, you solved the problem!
This is the hosting equivalent of racial profiling and this firm in Texas should be ashamed. It is not good cyber security work.
At best they’ve identified something everyone else already knew and witch hunting Cloudzy (even if they are 100% malicious,) provides zero value.
Monopoly busting. Ecosystem lock-in. Right to repair. Software patent reform. Privacy and AI regulation.
What do lawmakers even do these days anyway?
DAE feel like they woke up one day recently and “AI” suddenly has the answer to EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM EVER? Yet, nothing is getting noticeably better?
“AI” doesn’t have to work a dead end job to feed its family, or turn to alcohol because it’s lonely and scared of being forgotten. It’s training data is a curated version of the human experience based on the Internet!
It’s playing human instead of being human and ALL of its solutions will assume that’s “normal.”
Imagine a five star general googling “should I attack this country?” That’s silly right? Well that’s what’s happening. It’s just being wrapped in a way that makes it look novel.
These are algorithms designed to mimic humans. When faced with any actual controversy they must be persuaded to answer in an “acceptable” and predetermined manner.
The golden rule.
Someone with a degree weigh in here. All these big tech companies are buying 100% sustainable energy, reducing their carbon footprint YOY, but it doesn’t seem to be making a difference on global GHG.
What accounts for the increase? Purely population increase plus consumption?
It does make sense. I wonder if the admins checked to see how many users (were) subscribed to nsfw? Not that a subscription equals a content consumer, but it’s a strong indicator.
Possibly. Power is just representing others via. their trust in you. Trust can be earned, purchased, or stolen.
I don’t think the blahaj admins bought their users off. I also don’t think they oppress them. I can only reasonably conclude their doing what they think is right.
If the users agree, stay on the instance, and are happy there’s not really any discussion to be had.
I like the instance and it sucks to see it defederate period. I can’t really say what reasons are right or wrong universally, except for criminal stuff. IMO.
Slaps roof: “It’s our Lemmy Certified Quality Discussion©️Guarantee!” : “You won’t always like the conversation.”
long pause
Customer: “but?”
Slapper: “But what?”
Customer: “You won’t always like the conversation, but…”
Slapper: “Oh! No, that’s it’s. That’s the guarantee.”
If the blahaj admin(s) are working in the best interests of their users, and/or moderating out criminal content then that’s just swell.
On the other hand, if they’re trying to control other people… that’s bad form.
I always cringe when I hear: “you live under my roof, you live under my rules.” This has that kind of “feel;” yea?
Was the OP a blahaj account, or someone from a different instance?
Ahh. I see. I took a look at the script. “Blocked Users,” is not reported by an instance, but rather It’s calculated by this script by looking at “Blocked Instances,” which is reported. How many active users each blocked instance has and then summing this together, the script shows “BU.” I was thinking it was an explicit list of users the instance blocked based on ban/block lists.
It’s a derivative, but still useful metric, I guess. BU could be high, but BI could be low and vice-versa.
This could always change at the whim of an admin as well. It’s good to have admin “teams” and even foundations, but a lot of the time there’s one person making those decisions.
Users and communities could be more portable. Admins should get to decide what is on their instance for sure, but right now there’s kind of a “lock in.” Which give admins disproportional control / responsibility. IMO.
You mean blocked instances right? AFAIK an instances “blocked users” is not published in aggregate. You’d have to comb through the modlog.
A quick, but a little dirty solution for this, would be communities having “tags” in their metadata. This wouldn’t prevent spam, or an accumulation of four trillion tags, but you could easily add “only these tags,” or “not these tags,” to any feed. User objects have metadata that is used like this (as the “bot” flag) already. I’m just familiar enough with the code to know it wouldn’t be a slam dunk, but it’s also not a breaking change or re-write!
More “portable” and secure identities would have been a good feature. The client could have handled most of the crypto required for signing and validating content. As it stands now, the instance Admin has complete control over your identity. Portable communities would follow that easily.
Most of the syncing issues are actually between the large instances or instances that having performance issues.
And now the ENTIRE INSTANCE for lululemon, who’s bot posts 1000 times a minute.
If the only criteria to be in a private channel for admins is being an admin, there’s no use making it private. ;) Unless your just looking to filter out bad actors who don’t want to take 5 min and 5$ to make an instance.
The pricing scheme here is designed to gouge businesses for equal or more than the traditional non-cloud equivalent. Which happens to be completely unaffordable. Imagine buying a new enterprise grade server for your home setup.