Mastodon doesn't do enough to prevent centralization of control - when you make an account to use the network, you're making that account on some specific server. This ties your ability to communicate on the network under that identity both to the server operator, and to the domain name of the server. A fediverse server can go down because its maintainers deliberately shut it down or lose interest and stop maintaining it; a domain name can be lost or taken by a government (see the queer.af debacle). The administrators of a fediverse server can also decide to censor your posts or remove your account if they don't like what you post - and it's hard to argue that they don't have the right to do so because they're the ones running the server and storing your account as a row in their database.
If you run your own single-user fediverse server, you are the admin yourself so most of these aren't problems (although you still don't control your domain name). But it's difficult for most people to maintain their own social media server, so most people don't do this, meaning that they are still subject to the petty tyranny of their social media provider. It's just that instead of Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, it's whatever random person runs the server that they randomly picked to put their account on.
Regarding your first paragraph. Everything you said is true, but that's better than centralizated platforms like twitter and facebook. Yes or no?
And let me add: no model will prevent against everything. Yes, you're tied to an instance and XYZ - ok, so just pick one of the largest N instances to mitigate that. That's better than having 1 to pick from.
> As a result, the popularity of Matrix in public sector has resulted in focus there - which is somewhat different to the expectations of folks looking for a Discord replacement or a privacy-at-any-cost solution.
Unfortunately, a Discord replacement is the sort of thing that the free software world actually needs, because in its absence people are just using Discord, even for free software projects.
Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones? Which countries do and do not count as part of the West in any case? People hold different opinions about whether e.g. the entirety of Latin America counts as Western or not, and the choice to include or exclude those countries makes a big difference in how the US compares in terms of relative violent crime rates.
> Why not compare America against all countries instead of just Western ones?
Oh indeed, but what I am referring to is the "knife crime in London" comparator that right-wing gun groups use. Knife crime in London is not as bad as knife crime in any comparable US city. It's about 40% as bad as New York and only 10% as bad as Dallas.
> While the FBI did break these down by weapon type, they didn’t differentiate between AR-15s or similarly patterned rifles, and grandpa’s bolt action deer rifle. All told, in 2019 there were 364 rifle murders, out of a total of 10,258 firearm murders, accounting for approximately 3.5% of total firearm murders. Nobody uses rifles to murder people because they’re big, bulky, difficult to conceal, and a handgun can do the job just as well.
> There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. A bivariate correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.
The exact definition of "civilized world" is doing a lot of work here. What specific regions or poltical jurisdictions do you think count or do not count as part of the civilized world?
I am sorry I don't have the precise statement about relative rates of gun deaths and mass shootings in the US vs the rest of the OECD. Here's a data point to ponder, firearms are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the US: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
I wa surprised by this, because Mexico is in the OECD. According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/..., the firearm-related death rate (including suicides and accidents) in 2022 in Mexico for children and adolescents (age 1-19) is 4.9/100k, compared to 5.9/100k in the US. But the overall homicide rate is 6.5/100k for Mexico vs 4.7/100k in the US. So this is consistent with Mexico being a more violent society than the US, but using somewhat fewer guns in the process (and the numbers are still pretty similar). There's also questions about how reliable the Mexican firearm homicide data is - a lot of these are presumably happening in cartel-controlled areas where Mexican government state capacity is limited, including the capacity to properly gather statistics.
The Encyclopedia Brown story I remember reading as a kid involved a Civil War era sword with an inscription saying it was given on the occasion of the First Battle of Bull Run. The clues that the sword was a modern fake were the phrasing "First Battle of Bull Run", but also that the sword was gifted on the Confederate side, and the Confederates would've called the battle "Manassas Junction".
The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Bull_Run says the Confederate name was "First Manassas" (I might be misremembering exactly what this book I read as a child said). Also I'm pretty sure it was specifically "Encyclopedia Brown Solves Them All" that this mystery appeared in. If someone has a copy of the book or cares to dig it up, they could confirm my memory.
reply