Can you ping the Jellyfish server from the laptop? Can any other device access the Jellyfish server?

I don’t understand how exactly this differs from something like Tor.

When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…

Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.

[…] for […] brevity. […]

I don’t agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.

[…] for practicality […]

Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.

Well, presumably, that’s their job ^[1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.

Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts […]

Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn’t sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it’s a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one’s claims.

Good catch. Given that that it’s currently still available ^[1], I would guess that it’s likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that’s proof of one claim made by a news outlet ^[2] (It’s terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn’t that make us the journalists?).

If you’re willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare

https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/

Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.

Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.

Fair point.

Is that true? I just checked the reviews for all of the McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania on Google Maps ^[4] and none of them appear have been review bombed recently or have any mention of the UHI shooter ^[1][2][3].

Because I believe in the idea of the Fediverse and I want it to succeed.

An issue that I often find is that misinformation is often spread under the guise of innocent humor. If information becomes oversimplified to the point of becoming incorrect, and it’s shared as such, I think that some people may not internalize that it’s incorrect and will take it at face value. I do think that people have a responsibility to be skeptical of what they read, but I think that the people sharing information also have a responsibility to ensure its accuracy to the best of their ability to, at the very least, reduce the burden on those consuming information, and to reduce the impact of the extremes of people that consume and spread information without any thought given to its accuracy.

I use KDE Plasma on my desktop and GNOME on my laptop — though, by my experience, GNOME has been mildly annoying. I just find it too “restrictive” when compared with KDE. I’m also not super fond of how some apps seem to integrate rather poorly with GNOME. I do think that GNOME’s interface works well with a laptop, but the UX hasn’t been the best for me. I have few, if any, complaints regarding KDE.

This meme seems to be logically flawed — essentially, it’s an example of a faulty generalization: Let A be a set containing “Elites”, “Oligarchs”, and “Plutocrats”, let B be a set of things that are considered “bad”, and let C be a set of things that are considered capitalist; if A is a subset of B (ie all things in A are “bad”), and A is a subset of C (ie all things in A are capitalist) (assuming that those are correct subsumptions), that doesn’t imply that C is necessarily a subset of B (ie that things that are capitalist are bad, or, more generally that capitalism is bad) — there could be elements of C not in B. C is a subset of B if and only if all elements of C are in B (ie all things that are capitalist must be bad). So, for the meme’s logic to be sound A would have to equal C (ie capitalism only contains elites, oligarchs and plutocrats).

Of course, to avoid forming an argument from fallacy, I would like to clarify that this isn’t to argue that the final implied claim of “capitalism is the problem” is wrong, nor the explicit claim that “socialism isn’t the problem”, or, rather that “socialism is the problem” is wrong, but, instead, simply that the argument used is unsound.

Why are there what looks like Lemmy comments attached to what looks like a Reddit post…?

Plus I cringe at the thought of 75% of the CBC budget being spent on content moderation.

Theoretically, could they outwardly federate only? For example, they make a post which gets pushed out to other instances, but they would set their instance to not allow any external posts or comments to be federated into their instance, and they could close registrations. That way, the rest of the Fediverse could follow and interact with their content, and they wouldn’t have to deal with moderation. I’m not sure if that’s really how federation works, so please correct any inaccuracies.

[…] treat each Lemmy community as a community, not an audience.

I think it depends on the community in question, and the nature of the post. If, for example, one is looking for an answer to a question, or help with something, I would argue that one would, generally, want to target the largest relevant audience to maximize the surface area of potential people who can help. At any rate, more specifically, I don’t think it’s one or the other, but rather both — one would want to find the largest and the most relevant community. By my experience, another common behavior is to cross-post to multiple communities. This seems to be especially more common in a federated forum like Lemmy where there could be any number of duplicate communities.

Based PSA of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy!

As far as I understand it, a client app using UP to recieve push notifications does perform a registration step with the UP gateway (via the distributor app which communicates with the gateway via its own transport), which sets up and responds with the api endpoint details, which the client app relays to its servers, which can then send UP notifications via the specified gateway.

So, if there was to be encryption done by UP, it would be handled by the gateway? For example, for Matrix, it would then be handled by the Matrix gateway in Ntfy [1]?

Yeah, I was doing some more reading and I think it might only be the newest version of the UnifiedPush spec which requires the message to be encrypted.

The question I would then have is: Who would be responsible for updating their system to support this (ie the Unified Push encryption)? Say if we, for example, look at Matrix. Would Matrix need to modify their notification API? Would the Matrix gateway in Ntfy need to be modified? Would some other component of Ntfy be modified? Would the distributor app need to be modified? Would the end-user application need to be modified?