In most setups I have seen, the nginx instance provided by Lemmy is used due to the routing needed between lemmy/lemmy-ui being handled in nginx. Your reverse proxy can then point to the nginx instance to expose lemmy.
dudeami0
joined 2 years ago
As for the data transfer costs, any network data originating from AWS that hits an external network (an end user or another region) typically will incur a charge. To quote their blog post:
A general rule of thumb is that all traffic originating from the internet into AWS enters for free, but traffic exiting AWS is chargeable outside of the free tier—typically in the $0.08–$0.12 range per GB, though some response traffic egress can be free. The free tier provides 100GB of free data transfer out per month as of December 1, 2021.
So you won't be charged for incoming federated content, but serving content to the end user will count as traffic exiting AWS. I am not sure of your exact setup (AWS pricing is complex) but typically this is charged. This is probably negligible for a single-user instance, but I would be careful serving images from your instance to popular instances as this could incur unexpected costs.
Sounds like the cache got corrupted possibly? See if Ctrl+F5 clears up the issue, or try restarting your browser.
As for the article, I think this is generally PR and corporate speak. Whatever their reasons were, they apparently didn't shut down the initial XMPP servers until 2022 so it was a reliable technology. There "simplification" was bringing users into their ecosystem to more easily monetize their behaviour. This goes along with your last paragraph, at the end of the day the corporation is a for-profit organization. We can't trust a for-profit organization to have the best of intentions, some manager is aiming to meet a metric that gets them their bonus. Is this what we really want dictating the services we use day to day?
Google tried to add support for it in their product
Is like saying that google tried to add support for HTTP to their products. Google Talk was initially a XMPP chat server hosted at talk.google.com, source here.
Anyone that used Google Talk (me included) used XMPP, if they knew it or not.
Besides this, it's only a story of how an eager corporation adopting a protocol and selling how they support that protocol, only to abandon it because corporate interests got in the way (as they always do). It doesn't have to be malicious to be effective in fragmenting a community, because the immense power those corporations wield to steer users in a direction they want once they abandon the product exists.
That being said, if Google Talk wasn't popular why did they try to axe the product based on XMPP and replace it with something proprietary (aka Hangouts)? If chat wasn't popular among their users, this wouldn't of been needed. This could of been for internal reasons, it could of been to fragment the user base knowing they had the most users and would force convergence, we really can't be sure. The only thing we can be sure of is we shouldn't trust corporations to have the best interest of their users, they only have the best interest of their shareholders in the end.
These are just my opinions on the matter at hand.
TLDR; it's not all about growing as massive as possible and letting everyone talk to everyone. It's about communities being able to make choices for their user base and the freedom to choose who to federate with. It's also about users having a choice of which instance they use to interact with the fediverse, and with whom. Having Meta involved limits these choices in not so obvious ways.
Doesn’t the fediverse have an inherent protection and/or immunity from corporate take-over?
Yes, but that does not mean it is invulnerable. Take the World Wide Web as an example, over the past couple of decades the decentralized web has become increasingly centralized. Projects such as Lemmy and Mastodon are a shot back at this trend, to try and break the web up as it was. Each instance gets to decide if letting large corporations federate with them is the best choice or not. It seems that a lot do not want this, and this is exactly the kind of protection from corporate take over that is inherent. The more large central servers are allowed to take a central role, the more power they will gain to snuff small communities and instances. They will do this by fragmenting users bases and communities over time, or any other dirty tricks they can come up with.
Also, having billions of dollars at your disposal is known to increase your influence overall. They can outspend anyone to sell most people on how Threads is interconnected and fediverse friendly, if you let them sell that lie they will win in time. They'll do this, pull the rug and say how other independent instances aren't corporating. They will shut off access to these communities in one way or another and begin the process of centralization. It has happened before, and will happen again.
Aren’t we protected?
If you choose to not use Threads, you are not giving your information directly to Meta. But, that does not mean you are safe. Meta is a corporation, and will try to pull whatever tricks they can to take over as the dominate player. They are going head to head with Twitter, what makes you think instances a fraction of Twitters size are safe?
Also, saying we are isolated by our individual instances is a bit humorous as they are federated. If one instance pushes most of the content is that really isolated? What about upvotes, engagement and any other activity that is pushed to other servers via the ActivityPub protocol? These will all be taken in by Meta, which means you are feeding them activity. Sure it's safer, but they are still getting more data by engaging in the ActivityPub protocol than they get via scrapping pages. Also, they don't have to play fair with the ActivityPub protocol, there are a lot of dirty tricks that could be used to hamper content on other instances than their own.
Is there anything currently stopping Meta from scraping the Fediverse for our content?
No, and the fediverse should not care. The goal of the fediverse at the moment is to stay independent and have a user base that is not reliant on a single entity and to stay away from the influence of corporate interests. If you operate in a public space, someones always going to be able to see it. It's all about who owns that public space.
Won’t we grow & educate?
Who is we? Users that value their freedom will stay in the independent fediverse instances. Those who are looking for a twitter alternative will probably go to Threads. Those who don't care will probably stay on Twitter. Any of these users might have multiple accounts on some or all of these services. Trying to group this together as "we" is a bit disingenuous.
As for growth, it's not safe to assume that independent instances will grow because of the federation of users from Threads. Users that are on Threads are likely to stay on Threads, users that join instances are likely to stay there. Look to linux users to see why you aren't going to convert many over the virtues of freedom and decentralization, you'll just become another "fanboy".
Aren’t we worried we’re forcing an ultimatum while the Fediverse is still in its infancy?
What is the ultimatum? This is a pretty loaded question, since some of the fediverse is already fractured. The fact you can spin up your own instance, invite whoever you want and keep the interests of your community out of the hands of corporations is the goal. Freedom to host your own community. Anything else is just having a capitalist mindset on growth, the line doesn't always have to go up. Getting the most users isn't the end game, it's having a community that you belong to and feel a part of.
What’s the harm in pulling the ripcord if we try it, and it’s truly not a good fit?
Each instance chooses what is best for their community. Being a part of the mainstream content feed isn't the goal of most of these decentralized communities.
“What about an influx of low-quality content?”
Why do instances need to let users block Meta when they know their users want Meta blocked? What's stopping users from going to an instance that doesn't block Meta if their instance disagrees with their opinion? It's all about doing what instances communities want, or users can migrate if they feel their needs aren't being met.
“What if Meta doesn’t moderate well?”
Meta will probably be able to moderate for their advertisers better than most instance operators will be able to. But again, it's not about moderation and sanitizing content for advertiser revenue, it's about having a space that is for the community by the community. It doesn't need to be a single homogeneous community so ads can sell. Some of us want that outside of a corporations control, others don't or don't care, all are valid. Thankfully, everyone has a choice instead of being forced to do one or the other.
It's still a fingerprint, the most vague information correlated with other data points can make a useful fingerprint. This is how a lot of the companies can track you even if you aren't logged in, you using any service creates a pattern that with enough aggregate data can be used to approximate who you are.
Each instance serves the content from that instance, so from my understanding the only thing other instances can see are subscribed communities to be able to federate posts. Upvotes/Downvotes can possibly be tracked per user as they are federated on a per-vote basis currently, though this is just something I read and don't have sources at the present.
Being an admin of an instance, I can't even see my own history of visited posts. I can't verify this, but I doubt this information is being stored in the database currently.
This being said, each instance has full control over their API server and the web-based application being served, so they could add monitoring to either to gather this data. If they did this on the API end it would be undetectable. Running your own instance is the only fool proof method, otherwise you need to trust the instance operator.
Using Nvidia with closed source drivers by chance? I had a similar issue and had to disable the services related to nvidia suspend/hibernate/resume:
systemctl disable nvidia-suspend nvidia-hibernate nvidia-resume
This is all I can think of, some hardware specs might help others with assisting you.
From what I can read here:
The DMA’s threshold is very high: companies will only be hit by the rules if they have an annual turnover of €7.5 billion within the EU or a worldwide market valuation of €75 billion. Gatekeepers must also have at least 45 million monthly individual end-users and 100,000 business users.
So instances will not be required to federate because they will not be making the thresholds. This could explain why Meta is going to use the ActivityPub protocol though, and is an interesting perspective on the issue.
Does the flash drive show when you run
lsblkwith the correct amount of space?ddwill overwrite the partition table and works directly with the underlying physical blocks of the device. If the flash drive isn't broken, you should be able to rebuild the partition table withparted(tutorial from linuxconfig.org on the matter)