To anyone who feels bad after putting an embarrassing bug in production, just remember that it happens to everyone. Here we have @netflix blasting the classic "Hi NAME_VARIABLE!" out to no doubt millions of users.
♥ 15↺ 1
December 2021
268 tweets
Replying to @ylitvinenko and @netflix
Yes, it's a better fallback 😁
Replying to @donohoe and @netflix
That's a better version!
Le CA des GAFAM est de l'ordre de 1000 milliards d'euros par an. 1 milliard d'amende étalés sur 3.5 années de RGPD, ça équivaut à deux heures de CA.
Et l'idée selon laquelle leurs comportements changent est une vaste blague pour quiconque doit travailler avec eux.
Quoting a tweet by @Alliance_Dgtle ↗
♥ 62↺ 36
Je comprends que le travail est complexe et les moyens trop faibles, mais un minimum de sens des réalités ne serait vraiment pas de trop.
♥ 4
Web people! I have a question for you. The WICG has existed for a little over 6 years now. How do you think it is doing as an institution to help democratise Web standards?
♥ 11↺ 11
The reason I'm asking is this: it was created to make access to the standards process easier for developers, with the explicit hope of balancing some of the power of browser vendors.
I hoped to build a polity of web devs who get real-world problems better.
♥ 3
No such polity has emerged, that much is clear, but the WICG could still be useful regardless. I'd like to hear from people if they think that's the case, if it should be changed in some way, or if we would be better without it.
Be candid! It was meant *for* you.
♥ 1
(I will return later to how naive it is to think that opening access is the same as democratising and that decentralisation eliminates the concentration of power. In the meantime, you can make fun of 2015 me to your heart's content!)
♥ 9
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman
You mean that there exists a small group of people such that it works well for them, or that it works for specs that only interest a small group (each)?
Replying to @briankardell
That's kinda option (d) :) It's workingish but some change may be needed?
♥ 1
I'm re-reading this part of the DMA, and frankly it makes no sense whatsoever. This kind of cross-context data sharing is bad for privacy and for competition.
Competition is a *collective* issue — why allow the individualistic pathway that is consent to undermining it?
♥ 13↺ 3
Replying to @null and @dauwhe
Agreed — the community didn't gel into a cohesive group, let alone a polity.
Oh, for that you just need to find the horcrux from each market ;-D
♥ 1
Replying to @tim_libert
Care to expand a bit? Google services selling data to one another probably accounts for most of the world's privacy violations, so if that gets effectively prevented it's pretty good, no?
♥ 3
DMA friends: rather than making amendments to list every single type of user agent I would suggest defining what a user agent is in general terms and applying the rules to that. There's a lot of good we can do from understanding and specifying the roles of user agents!
♥ 8↺ 1
Replying to @briankardell
On this specific issue, I don't. Part of the issue is that the Web is completely captured right now, so the value of developer participation is very low. Either you work for Google or your voice mostly doesn't matter. Hard to build on that.
♥ 2
Question for DMA experts: this reads like it outlaws leveraging user systems to appropriate trade secrets, à la Chrome Sync. Do I read it right? If so, it seems that the DMA will bring big privacy benefits on top of the competition value. (From Am.E but mostly there prior.)
♥ 2
"Roz grimaces, makes the universal gesture for inbox full." --@m_older
Sometimes, literature can invent a better future in the smallest details.
♥ 9↺ 3
No context Star Trek: Discovery.
♥ 2
Replying to @perigrin
Five minutes ahead of you!
Replying to @braedon
Awww...
Replying to @JonasBadalic and @AmeliasBrain
Totally, that was in the initial plan, but it requires money.
♥ 3
Replying to @kkomaitis and @cyberbaines
I'm not sure that this is required for consistency with the GDPR, though? Like, you wouldn't make insider trading or economic espionage based on personal data legal just because subjects consented to the processing!
♥ 1
And I'm not 100% sure about the massive dataset thing either. These things rot, they have a shelf life. Better root them out now!
Replying to @random_walker
It's not just normal, if you're not embarrassed by previous work you're not growing 😁
♥ 10↺ 2
Replying to @mccanner
I think "crackerjack" is back to being vivid again!
Replying to @mccanner
Yeah, I'd be especially psyched if someone got into the gonzo nitty-gritty of pretty much anything.
♥ 1
Replying to @cwilso
What I recall as the goal was to do what the RICG had done — build and ship developer-driven specs when vendors largely wouldn't listen — across the board, continue the NextWeb work, etc. Removing browser vendors from the critical path to innovation was a big topic.
Replying to @alextcone and @cwilso
That entirely depends on how the stack is built and on what we consider the scope of web standards to be. There was this "Extensible Web" movement at some point that sought to make it easier to build things (that could be standard for other reasons) atop but without browsers.
♥ 2
Also, non-browser standards have been left by the wayside for way too long, which has contributed to only a fraction of the Web being standardised and entire areas (search, social, chat, etc.) left open for enclosure.
♥ 1
Replying to @cwilso
You can't remove browsers from the *eventual* path but you can remove them from the critical path. A lot of the ideas back then had to do with proving viability/populatiry with polyfills, the idea being that you can't argue with widespread popular usage (à la RICG).
♥ 2↺ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @cwilso
We don't know because it didn't work (or hasn't worked yet, for the optimists). A typical example would be markup that's standardised so as to be useful for interchange (eg. with authoring) but just uses Web Components and so doesn't need browser support.
Replying to @jyasskin
I'm sorry Jeffrey but all they did was learn from Google that hounding users into switching and using the browser UI for business objectives is fair game. You can't show that playing dirty works and then complain that it becomes the norm.
♥ 9
Replying to @null and @dauwhe
I can't believe I missed this the first time around!
Replying to @jyasskin
SSO integration and the cleartext Sync funnel come to mind as pretty clear examples? Using the tab restore prompt to get people to opt into telemetry also raises questions.
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @dauwhe
If we had some kind of annual event celebrating achievements in Web standards it would definitely win in some category.
♥ 1
Replying to @cwilso and @alextcone
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it hasn't worked at all, but in the context of Alex's question I think so far WCs (for example) haven't seen enough adoption to justify much standard work at that layer, no?
Replying to @jyasskin
It's really not clear to me that this is user-centric; in fact, the way in which the integration works on Chromebook is extremely frustrating. It also makes users recognised with a single identity across most of the Web which is very user-hostile.
It's a direct competitor to other identity systems, including that of websites, and using the browser to boost an SSO in a way that is detrimental to user privacy isn't great.
Replying to @jyasskin
Sure — I know that well first-hand. But it helps to acknowledge where that comes from. "Sad to see Edge joining Chrome in gross behaviour" might have been a better way to capture that.
♥ 4
Replying to @cwilso and @alextcone
I was focusing on WC because that's a place where I can see reason to build higher-layer standards. I don't see that as easily for pure-JS thing if that makes sense?
♥ 1
Replying to @0x21376B00 and @SharkPatterns, @jyasskin
And in Chrome, no matter how many times you click "Never" when it prompts you to enter the Sync funnel (eg. password save), it will ask again. Passwords are encrypted automatically by default, but to encrypt your behaviour you need a "passphrase," etc. It's not subtle.
Replying to @SharkPatterns and @jyasskin
Yeah, every time I see this dialog I wonder how far we are from Chrome rebranding as just "Google" and concluding its trip towards just being an in-app browser 😔
♥ 1
Replying to @LeoClauzade
Tu peux mettre du RGPD partout sans changer de comportement.
Replying to @LeoClauzade
En même temps, sur juste le sujet privacy, ce n'est pas Apple qui me fait le plus de soucis! Je serais même tenté de te dire que RGPD n'a pas changé grand chose parce qu'ils faisaient déjà pas mal de choses avant.
♥ 1
Replying to @jkohlmann and @brandonscript
It's not just that, it's the idea that design can be data-driven. That's just a terrible idea on every level. Calling upon data so that designers can know what's going on is good; using data to drive decisions is bad for designers, users, and accountability all at once.
♥ 5↺ 2
Replying to @killbyte and @random_walker
Sure thing! And you should see how embarrassing my previous work is, I must be growing a hell of a lot 😂
♥ 1
Replying to @ikkibop and @omertene, @vmanancourt
Even when it doesn't rain, the sky somehow manages to maintain a deep and heavy shade of gray that feels as if it's close and pushing down on you. London weather is nothing like that!
♥ 1
Replying to @julien51 and @lukemulks
On the contrary, there's good evidence that filter bubbles would *decrease* polarisation!
♥ 3
Replying to @dsemprun and @ikkibop, @omertene, @vmanancourt
Exactement!
Replying to @omertene and @dsemprun, @ikkibop, @vmanancourt
Baudelaire n'était vraiment pas fan de la Belgique 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @migueldeicaza and @martinmcwhorter
I don't think we're better off in gatekeeping. Gatekeeping was never about deciding what got published, you could always start a fanzine. It was about what got amplified. We've switched from a too elitist, not diverse group in the 10^6 range to just two gatekeepers. Not a win!
Replying to @migueldeicaza and @martinmcwhorter
Is there any evidence that it isn't mostly the same people reading online? When I was a teen pre-web, you could read a ton about Palestine in the anarchist, Trotskyist, etc. small newspapers that people made and circulated.
Replying to @migueldeicaza and @martinmcwhorter
I think we grew up in very different media ecologies. Around me, it was pretty normal over thirty years ago.
Replying to @null and @dylanbailey7591, @eaton, @jpwarren
I don't know; I'll take the opening that calls a white supremacist an asshole over the one that treats suicide as a joke.
♥ 82
Replying to @keith_wilson
Maybe review what apps you have connected to it?
Replying to @captainsafia
Yes — but get a motorised one, otherwise if you're anything like me you won't do it when you need it most, which is to say when you're a bit low on energy.
♥ 4
Replying to @fantasai
That... is disappearing there too.
Sometimes I wish I were a morning person so that I could see this more often.
♥ 8↺ 1
Replying to @versac
Putain ça fait des mois que je le case discrètement et que personne ne relève. Heureusement que tu es là!
Replying to @brianleroux
The platform convention is foobar, which you can spell fooBar if you want since it's insensitive. It's probably easier to stick to that?
Replying to @matthewcp and @brianleroux
There are a few random strays (eg. accept-charset) but the foo-bar convention is normally used by SVG specifically when including CSS properties as attributes. But otherwise colspan, rowspan, accesskey, contenteditable, usemap, tabindex, novalidate… and more!
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @rawrawrmonstar, @matthewcp, @brianleroux
Yeah, and kebab matches SVG — which is still case sensitive — when it conveys attributes meant to be DOM props (viewBox, gradientTransform, pathLength, etc.). So YMMV!
♥ 1
Replying to @brianleroux and @matthewcp, @rawrawrmonstar
Having foobar reflect as fooBar is pretty typical in the HTML DOM, so that'd be neat. Reproducing the data-* behaviour beyond that, I'm less sure about. It has some weird cases, eg. with numbers.
♥ 1
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman
Pink clouds I see at 7am on winter mornings, but that usually misses sunrise and I wouldn't call it "late" :)
The famous rugcats.
♥ 6
Replying to @seanmcarroll
You can plan scale-free structures (eg. road networks, for some measure) but is there any reason to believe that that will (help) produce a complex community? I'm not aware that we've figured out how to engineer complexity yet.
♥ 3
Replying to @ms_bubble and @seanmcarroll
I don't think it proves that the opposite is true, but it does show that it's not sufficient. Put simply: complex system produce scale-free structures, this doesn't entail that scale-free structures produce complex systems. See also:
bookshop.org/books/the-deat…
Replying to @mbleuer
Thank you! Glad you liked it. I wanted to join the chat but for some reason it didn't work, I'm sorry I couldn't be there!
Replying to @susanthesquark and @MuseumModernArt
It's early in the season, but I think you win at Christmas.
♥ 3
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Hahaha, I love these! I have actually seriously considered buying one. I reckon if I ever get to be a proper grown up i intellectual, I'll have to get one 😁
Replying to @Iwillleavenow
I think we should start referring to these as #TormentNexus visions.
♥ 3↺ 1
This is hard to watch, but impossible to ignore. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
♥ 1↺ 2
Q: Why did the on-call security engineer miss the alert?
A: They were sleeping like a log4j.
♥ 5
Replying to @null and @podopie
An award for my @smashingmag piece — thanks a lot! You can read it here: smashingmagazine.com/2021/08/agains…
Quoting a tweet by @graphicarttoday ↗
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @JaimieMurdock
That dialog is insanely confusing.
Want privacy? Want competition? Why not both!
berjon.com/competition-pr…
♥ 57↺ 16
Replying to @kingthor and @benjedwards
I think that if you have the login SDK it gets hit no matter what... Preventing Facebook from using SDKs to side-track people is an interesting challenge.
♥ 1
Replying to @braedon
Thank you Braedon!
I would be curious to hear more about your reluctance with respect to privacy-preserving alternatives. Admittedly, it's a big bag, some of which is good and some bad. I can see a whole bunch of issues with FLoC, but PP attribution would seem fine?
♥ 1
Replying to @kkomaitis
I'd love to hear the thoughts!
Replying to @kvnweb
Thank you!
Replying to @jimcollinson
I will not confirm rumours that I almost called it the Theory of Big Knobs.
♥ 1
Replying to @braedon
Right, I think I agree with the broad strokes of your position, but I'm interested in carving out what works. I also think that the distinction between capture and surveillance might matter here.
There is no state of no influence (other than death), the question is what's OK?
♥ 1
I think that basic retargeting that doesn't share information is fine if it's like: you checked out a product, the site stored an ad (or equivalent) on your browser with rules to show it later, and at some point it gets shown. No one learns, and you are "just" reminded.
♥ 1
But there are plenty of failure modes with the potential birds. I think we need to dive deep and find principles. I hope to do that in the PATCG as part of documenting what "good ads" are. Fun but hard! I hope you chime in!
♥ 1
Replying to @braedon
For attribution, there's a new proposal coming. I think it might hold promise.
For Trust Tokens, I definitely see both issues and value. I would like to take a step back and write down what identity on the web should be (including proving statements about oneself).
♥ 1
Re browsers, I'm more worried about their incentives not being aligned with high quality ad systems since they make no money directly. We might have to fix that but that has other problems...
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @aaronolmstead
That's partly true, but there are limits to that approach. It only works so well when repeat offenders also own significant infrastructure, notably browsers and OSs :)
Replying to @fredbenenson and @can
Not necessarily a bulletproof explanation, but perhaps worth considering: porn is also suffering from massive monopolisation. This isn't the crazy innovative porn of the 90s, you can't cut out the middle man if MindGeek isn't driving traffic to you in the first place.
Replying to @matthewngn
Thanks a lot! I agree, I'm excited to try to figure out how to understand data properly. I think a lot of the right pieces exist, we have to figure out how to put them together.
♥ 1
Replying to @braedon
It's a tough question, we really need a fiduciary regime to back it up. But fiduciaries can spend time making sure they make some money. More generally, we've thought of UAs as individualistic but we need to look out for the Web commons. That works if under collective governance.
♥ 1
Replying to @Annaleen
It's also one of the most painful features of Google Docs, you have to learn NEVER to autocomplete a person's name, otherwise it turns them into a chip. I've lost good colleagues that way.
♥ 10
Replying to @Annaleen
Maybe it's an enterprise feature. As a captive audience, we get to have better fun, as Foucault explained so well in Surveiller et Punir.
♥ 2
Replying to @kurt and @anildash
Exactly. I don't use it because many of the people I've discovered here who didn't already have a significant platform with one of my communities were from thoughtful replies to hard topics. I wish I could hide bad replies though.
♥ 2
Replying to @can
The spike is brutal, and I don't think that it's out of vertical yet.
Replying to @RebeccaSpang
Do you think that the latter could update the former? It's not just that I could eat a leftover quarter chapon with my fingers in yoga pants in front of the open fridge, but I wouldn't feel culturally out of place sharing the experience 😁
♥ 1
I just call it "5". Sure, HTML brought some stuff to the table, but 5 has been pulling its weight for longer. Lots of 5 out there!
Quoting a tweet by @chris22smith ↗
♥ 6↺ 1
A very good summary of the workshop on Social Media as a Crisis Discipline that ran recently. We barely scratched the surface, of course, and I look forward to more.
medium.com/rebooting-soci…
♥ 1↺ 1
Replying to @RobertJBateman
The statement would have been more believable with a picture of an @EU_EDPB group hug :-D
That said, they have a point. When you establish a group as consensus-driven, that specifically means that people are meant to disagree a lot.
Replying to @GerardARudden and @RobertJBateman, @EU_EDPB
Oh, I'm aware — I was commenting on the general idea. It always bothers me when people equate disagreeing with dysfunctional, especially in consensus processes.
The DPC… is a whole other level.
"If there’s ever a future where we can begin to reimagine the internet as a commons, rather than a shopping mall with a handful of big-box platforms that extract our data and our time, building our own network may be a good start." —@aprilaser
logicmag.io/bodies/another…
♥ 19↺ 4
I see no reason why that future wouldn't be now! (Article initially recommended by @hackylawyER.)
♥ 1
For all the tut-tutting, web3 is mostly an overcorrection (plus the usual grifters).
We have a web fully controlled by a few megacorporations that seek to intermediate everything, preventing sovereignty & governance. And many useful architectures don't have a business model.
♥ 21↺ 4
Overindexing on governance and sovereignty, and financialising everything is almost certainly not the solution. But we need to make collectivity and money work. If we play this right, there's a great baby in that murky bathwater.
♥ 9
I don't know if and when we'll get there, but blunt rejection isn't the answer.
In the meantime, I find the overlap between the people who don't see why anyone would be interested in these problems and the people who don't see fault in the current system quite revealing.
♥ 10
Replying to @lukemulks and @johnnyryan, @PrivacyMatters, @acfou
Yeah, I wish I could say I was in the least surprised...
♥ 2
Replying to @fabricedesre
Thanks! Will read.
Replying to @null and @marcosc
Yeah, I think that would be a good idea, but we have to scope it down to make sure it's viable.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @safepress
I've heard of it, but I'm not familiar. I'll read more, thanks!
Replying to @null and @wjmaggos
The fediverse is great, but I'm not sure that it is set up to defend against centralisation, especially once it scales up to a broader public.
Replying to @null and @marcosc
I don't know about that. Restricting the Web to browser APIs got us where we are, and a lot of the promising ideas (notably in ILP) are outside browsers.
There's obvious BS to leave out and clear things to include like WebMon, but I think in between it's more complex.
Excellent in-depth research showing that the IAB TCF is basically ignored at scale.
It's time to ditch the TCF and double down working on adtech with effective governance.
Quoting a tweet by @kfranasz ↗
♥ 8↺ 2
Replying to @null and @marcosc
I'm not blaming browsers, I'm blaming the idea that Web standards should only be about browsers.
The Web is more than just an SDK.
↺ 1
…blah due to covid blah… school will be remote the first two weeks of January…
♥ 4
Replying to @null and @marcosc
Whatever more is also just comes down to the laws of physics. Yet somehow some of us still try to improve things at some of the higher layers.
Replying to @null and @marcosc
I would suggest framing the first one differently. We still don't know what the scope of the Web is, so it seems weird to expect that to be answered for Web3. I'd focus on "what should be done differently, what is the problem space."
What's missing from this is governance models.
♥ 1
There is a degree of regulation that can be done without direct regulatory support. Basic example: you can only get addresses in the `g.rhea` ILP 'hood if you abide by certain rules; if you fail to abide you lose the ability to receive payments
♥ 1
That goes beyond protocols, etc. but ties directly to them. It can be standardised in the same way we standardises processes, registry management, etc.
Other similar things can be back by laws, eg. rights reservation protocols.
♥ 1
Replying to @mathewi and @HalSinger
Actually, Google's behaviour is key in preventing publishers from monetising. Their approach to ranking (and search monopoly) means that publishers must do significant Google-specific work (eg. AMP) in order to get traffic. AMP CPMs are very low and there's no header bidding.
♥ 5
The model in which a search engine indexes content in exchange for driving traffic was nice; it's also dead, and trying to understand the digital economy from this perspective is bound to fail. Systems like AMP or Showcase keep pushing for greater intermediation.
♥ 3
Publishers are essentially being pushed out of their relationship with readers, simply because one party has excessive control over discovery. This drives revenue down, which makes pubs more dependent on traffic, which means they can't negotiate revenue terms, etc.
♥ 6↺ 1
Replying to @espadrine and @marcosc
I definitely disagree that data ownership is a key motive — so there you go ;-)
♥ 1
Replying to @mathewi and @HalSinger
That's an entirely outdated understanding of how it works. With AMP or Showcase, the content is entirely served directly by Google. The publisher is never visited or involved.
♥ 5
Replying to @mathewi and @HalSinger
As you so eloquently put it, publishers are not compensated for AMP.
As Hal can explain, Showcase pricing is at the kind of level you can expect when sellers make a deal at economic gunpoint - and that's before factoring in discounted future value of direct relationships...
♥ 2
...or social goods like, you know, a press free enough to decide what goes on its own front page.
♥ 1
Replying to @HalSinger and @mathewi
On top of that, I would add that involuntary participation is a good indicator of underpricing. I'd also recommend reading the @Adlc_'s work on Showcase if it has been translated.
Two years ago, @netflix: Hey, we know everyone hates autoplay video even though it fakes engagement numbers SO GOOD, so there's now a convoluted process to switch it off, if you must.
Everyone: Yay!
@PrimeVideo: Good news! We'll now ram autoplay down your throats too!
♥ 3↺ 1
Replying to @supergovernance and @netflix, @PrimeVideo
Oh, I'd forgotten @YouTube still had videos under their "SIGN UP NOW" prompts!
Everyone's gotta fake their numbers the same way I guess, otherwise the SEC might do something about it.
♥ 1
Replying to @Raantuva and @kurt, @anildash
I have a button to mute a subconversation, if there's also a hide button that curates my replies for others, I don't have it!
Replying to @Chronotope
I think either they get the same kind of publicationworthiness and fact checking as news, or they should be junked as just something that you can get free from randos on the Internet. I think there's real value there, but it has to be ruthlessly high quality.
♥ 4
Replying to @Chronotope
Hmm, I'm not sure what examples you have in mind. I was thinking about that guy who wrote all that nonsense about Kant being antirational or some choice columnists we have. People who'll say random stuff with no intellectual rigour.
♥ 3
Replying to @Chronotope
True, but that's actually something that I think would make sense. "We put as much care into making sure our opinions aren't BS as we do with the report" is a promise I'd listen to, specifically because rigorous opinion is hard.
♥ 5↺ 1
Replying to @Adlc_ and @HalSinger, @mathewi
Merci beaucoup! 😁
Replying to @SimonJHarris and @mjbarash, @OSchiffey
The entirety of UID2 is predicated on having a governance structure that could prevent participants from mapping the hashes back to emails when they're not supposed to. All the crypto in between is useless without that part and... last I looked, it was still TBD.
♥ 5↺ 1
If I were @IABEurope, I wouldn't touch it with a six foot pole.
♥ 5
I'm not a podcasts person but I need to entertain a family for a drive. Any recs for history or science documentary podcasts, preferably not sensationalised things (eg. not like American TV documentaries)? Needy is good, my kids are used to it. Thanks 😁
♥ 4
Replying to @adambroach
Seems popular 😁
Replying to @mounirlamouri
Merci. I've been scared of French things, those I tried have been with horrendous voices and terrible writing but this looks promising!
Replying to @DoraCrisan
It's very nice but hard to drive to.
Replying to @alextcone
Thanks!
Replying to @ariezrawaldman and @99piorg
Oooh, this looks like it will meet with a lot of approval, thanks!
♥ 1
Replying to @telecomsense and @DarknetDiaries, @ourfakehistory, @HiddenBrain
Thanks, I'll check those out!
♥ 1
Replying to @emmavinccent
The History of Ideas looks like exactly what I'd listen to myself if I listened to podcasts!
Replying to @stuartathompson
Oooh, will try that.
Replying to @libbymiller
Thank you!
Replying to @neilmrichards
Not at all, I very much enjoyed it. I felt it did the much-needed work (for me) of putting many privacy ideas in a better order. I've started rewriting stuff already 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @tiffanyxjiang
Ha, thanks!
Replying to @jason_kint and @neilmrichards
And I didn't get a degree which I guess makes me a hack of all trades, as it were! That's where great books really come in handy.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @IanMulvany
Thanks!
Replying to @null and @msbabskeating
This one looks hilarious, thanks!
Replying to @cepcam
Les deux! Merci, je regarde ça.
I hope @Twitter adds support for Interledger / Web Monetization to their new tips system, it would seem like an obvious great match.
♥ 3
Don't Look Up is painfully real, written on a knife's edge between rage and hilarity that it then stabs you with.
And small detail, but the lyrics to @ArianaGrande's song in it are lit.
youtu.be/X6SuW5HhQoc?t=…
♥ 5
Replying to @FascinatingTech
Reach out to people you think are interesting or might be interested in your work and ask if you can have a zoom call. It doesn't always work, sometimes people are busy, so don't take that personally, but you should get some hits.
♥ 2
Replying to @LMSacasas
What terrifies me is here is that I don't think that Notion particularly encourages this. It doesn't feel like this comes from the app as any manner of coercive structure.
♥ 2
Misread and got briefly excited that I was about to purchase some "Nice Quiddity Malbec." We don't ever focus on wine quiddity quite enough.
♥ 6
Replying to @LMSacasas
I've been meaning to read more fundamental texts and Ellul is on my list, but I'm unsure where best to go. Any recommendations? I'm looking at L'illusion politique and Le système technicien.
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I hadn't thought of the Potter view, but it works too!
Replying to @LMSacasas and @DougHill25
The way you describe it confirms my feeling trying to orient myself in his work, which is that it seems hard to get into some of it without pulling the whole thing in.
I guess I can just make one big list of all his works and rank them with life-improvement points 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @LMSacasas and @DougHill25
I saw! I'm not usually into theology, but I stumbled across "le christianisme, envisagé dans son rapport à la politique, dispose à l’insoumission, à la dissidence, à la récusation même de tout pouvoir" and it made me curious about that too.
Thanks, I'll check that out!
Replying to @montezumachavez and @dansereduick, @harrybr, @mario_gug
Covid is totally aguardiente territory!
♥ 1
Replying to @montezumachavez and @mario_gug, @harrybr, @dansereduick
Oh yeah. We've got to get this wine/privacy conference going.
♥ 3
Replying to @Chronotope
I'd like options to decrease font size in the code block and also to rotate it 90deg without rotating the page. (I'm always rotation locked.)
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope
There was nothing good five years ago when I looked into the same issue while at science.ai. Sadly didn't get around to it. The fact that GitHub adding copy to all code was considered amazing gives an idea of the state of play!
♥ 1
Completely selfishly, I would be very interested in papers about factors that prevent the emergence of collective intelligence. It's a concern I have (see berjon.com/stewardship/) that I wish to understand much better.
Quoting a tweet by @Collective_CI ↗
♥ 1
Replying to @tim_libert
There is nothing technodeterministic about this. Sure, governance is another option, but it would have to be accountable and collective. Otherwise it's just an intermediary holding data on a pinky promise. It's just like the Chrome problem, that's not governance.
Replying to @tim_libert
I see what you read, but my RT was about trust. Governance is also a way not to need to trust a given entity, the idea being that there are checks and balances to compensate for the vulnerability.
Christmas loot!
♥ 30↺ 4
♥ 2
Replying to @catthekin
Yes, I've been meaning to get around to this one forever. This year I plan to plug some holes I have with classics.
♥ 3
Replying to @DougHill25 and @LMSacasas
Thank you, that's very helpful. And no need to apologise at all, there's no speed imperative!
Innovative disruption at its best.
♥ 8↺ 1
Replying to @AmeliasBrain
It's good! No cheese is involved, though, so yeah it's more like gimmick chocolate. But good!
♥ 1
Replying to @alex_kuhner
Yeah, people have given up on getting me books, apparently my tastes are idiosyncratic I'm told! Instead I get myself a few books 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @mnot and @mfroomkin
I hadn't thought about the generation of mass loyalty, but oh boy.
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I didn't get the Dan Brown vibe?
Replying to @can
Such a cutie.
Replying to @__apf__
Not such an idiot, what with patiently waiting for it to be cooked, deboned, and sliced.
♥ 2
Is it just me, or whenever you have to type a right arrow \rarr in LaTeX you too mentally whisper "rarr! [clawing gesture]"?
♥ 7↺ 1
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman
♥ 1
Replying to @julien51
The really funny part is that there is a company out there (can't recall which) that sells stripping that as a service. They have a whole website about unifying identity and all.
♥ 2
Replying to @MaxGendler and @harrybr
To complement what Max said, browsers can't tell which cookies are essential and which are not. (Or more precisely, where it's possible to tell, most browsers that aren't Chrome will already block them.) That's why we need regulation of the kind Max points to.
♥ 6
We also need some sort of social consensus as to what "essential" data processing is. That's actually a tricky question, though we should tackle it if we want an online that doesn't suck.
♥ 6↺ 1
Replying to @MaxGendler and @alextcone, @Chronotope, @harrybr
It's altogether too often understood to mean the strict minimum necessary from the view of just one participant. That's not the best starting point but it's where approaching privacy through individualistic ideals like "consent" naturally leads!
♥ 4
My bet is that if we think privacy in better terms, based on equitable power, then what we understand as being "essential" should prove more useful.
♥ 5
Replying to @alextcone and @MaxGendler, @Chronotope, @harrybr
Well, if that's the limit then we're fucked but bad, so we should assume it's not!
♥ 2
Replying to @JasonWilliamsNY and @NicholasGladman
Shit, that's a lot of blood on my hands.
Replying to @JasonWilliamsNY and @NicholasGladman
Well mostly I'm looking for that tab I've been saving but can't recall where.
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope
I think this is both true and slightly unfair. Participation in governance needs some form of stake. It's often based on things like "living there" where the stakes are clear (or would be if we had fewer nationalistic morons to contend with).
♥ 2
I totally get the thought that, hey, if we have something monetary, we can use that as a stake to anchor governance from. It's IMHO wrong, but it's not stupid.
The heart of the problem is that we don't see that we have a huge stake in our online lives because we don't own them!
♥ 2
If we remember that we should own what we share here, that we should be paid for all that we create, that we should decide what gets recommended to us in search and social, etc. then it's obvious that we live here and that is reason enough to deserve voice.
♥ 2↺ 1
Because infrastructure ought to be governed as a commons, it's the only way. Collective cognitive infrastructure just as much.
Anyway, I could rant for a while. Bits of blockchain can be useful, but it's not cryptocurrency that we need.
♥ 3
Replying to @Chronotope and @tobie
We're already in landholder politics! All this does is make it explicit 😁
♥ 2
Yeah, whatever, it's still Caturday.
♥ 12↺ 1
Replying to @Chronotope
I think that the debates around crypto are obscuring the fact that we do need better monetary options if we want to keep data from being the chief currency. But that should be very very separate from governance rights!
♥ 2
Replying to @swodinsky
I wonder if I could get that TC in exchange for delivering the paper for one hour a month 😂
♥ 5
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman and @swodinsky
I think it's a good idea in general, in fact I'm surprised that DoorDash does something like this.
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope
Reading legal docs is fun! Also, I find that once you get used to the formalism they get faster to read. And having an understanding of the subject matter means you see things the lawyers couldn't guess.
♥ 1
Replying to @bbennettesq and @Chronotope
That's true for templates, but what I have in mind goes deeper and I suspect it's enough second nature to lawyers that they no longer see it. I'm thinking of the essential components of contracts, eg. terms, or-else clauses, etc. It's similar in that to standards.
Replying to @mkramer and @MaxGendler, @Chronotope, @SteveBellovin, @AlexanderAbdo
There's so much to learn I wouldn't know which to pick 😁
Replying to @bbennettesq and @Chronotope
Right, we have the same for standards (defaults must be specified, errors must be handled, etc.). I think an intro to those things would do me a world of good.
Replying to @swodinsky and @clancynewyork
I'd suggest just reaching out for a chat to those whose work intersects with yours. I've found these exchanges amazing, and I get a sense that they also benefit from the ability to ask about what we know industry-side. I wish I had time to do more of these exchanges.
♥ 3
Replying to @mnot and @slightlylate
Which is why finding a business model for browsers that doesn't involve selling users to the richest recommendation engine is so important.
♥ 4
Une quoi?
♥ 9
Replying to @cagoldberglaw and @lockdownurlife, @Apple
It's worse: the protection system in iOS shows that they *did* think of the ways in which it could be abused, devised a highly imperfect mitigation, and shipped anyway.
♥ 3