- 9 Posts
- 35 Comments
0·3 months agodeleted by creator
17·3 months ago26 TB where coming a few years ago, and yet I’m only recently seeing 20 TB drives.
Is this relevant for executables only or also movies, TV series, game ISOs, books, audiobooks, etc?
For watching movies and shows there is nothing simpler than Stremio with the Torrentio addon.
For other files I don’t like the BitTorrent protocol for sharing because it complicates file sharing, requiring files to remain in their original locations without renaming when creating a torrent. I prefer Nicotine+ and Fopnu as they allow me to easily select folders for sharing without any complications. These are the only programs I know of that are compatible with Windows and Linux and are actively developed. They are newbie friendly because searching for files inside the program is straightforward. I’ve also used eMule, Gnutella, DC++, Shareaza, MLDonkey but I don’t recommend them. Although eMule has good availability for old/rare content.
1·4 months agoMore critically, the proof-of-concept so far appears to lack any real work on moderation tools or implementing a web of trust system. These would be absolutely vital components for a federated encyclopedia to have any chance of controlling quality and avoiding descending into a sea of misinformation and edit wars between conflicting “truths.” Centralized oversight and clear enforced guidelines are key reasons why Wikipedia has been relatively successful, despite its flaws.
Without a robust distributed moderation system in place, a federated encyclopedia runs the risk of either devolving into siloed echo chambers pushing various agendas, or becoming an uncoordinated mess making it impractical as a general reference work. The technical obstacles around federating content policies, privileges and integrated quality control across instances are immense challenges that aren’t obviously addressed by this early proof-of-concept.
While novel approaches like federation are worth exploring, straying too far from Wikipedia’s principles of neutral point-of-view and community-driven policies could easily undermine the entire premise. Lofty goals of disrupting Wikipedia are admirable, but successfully replacing its dominance as a general reference work seems extremely unlikely without solving these fundamental issues around distributed content governance first.
Yeah, you are right. I’ve always remembered it this way because it makes more sense to me.
The idea of a federated, decentralized Wikipedia alternative is intriguing, but implementing it successfully faces major hurdles. Federating moderation policies and privileges across different instances seems incredibly complex. I believe it would also require some kind of web of trust system. Quality control is also a huge challenge without centralized oversight and clear guidelines enforced universally.
While it could potentially replace commercial wiki farms like Wikia/Fandom for niche topics, realistically replacing Wikipedia’s dominance as a general reference work seems highly ambitious and unlikely, at least in the short term. But as they say - shoot for the stars, and you may just land on the moon.
That said, ambitious goals can spur innovation. Even if Ibis falls short of usurping Wikipedia, it could blaze new trails and pioneer federated wiki concepts that feed back into Wikipedia and other platforms. The federated model allowing more perspectives and focused communities is worth exploring, despite the technical obstacles around distributed moderation and content integration. The proof-of-concept shows the core pieces are in place as a starting point.
4·4 months agoWould it be feasible to expose the metadata for posts in such a way that search queries could be customized to sort a front page any way a user wants to see it?
There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.
@[email protected] in https://discuss.online/comment/6718715
Yeah, it would definitely be feasible to expose post metadata for customized search queries. Currently, the data is restricted to admins and mods, but having an API endpoint for users could enhance the sorting options without significant strain on the server. It could lead to more tailored and engaging user experiences on the platform.
https://discuss.online/comment/6718201
Perhaps even a sentiment analysis would be interesting to see: serious discussion, jokes and memes discussion, informative posters, political conversation left or right, etc.
This reminds me of Slashdot moderation and Media Bias Fact Check Integration
Slashdot moderation
this was something I loved about slashdot moderation. When voting, people had to specify the reason for the vote. +1 funny, +1 insightful, +1 informative, -1 troll, -1 misleading, etc.
That way you can, for example, set in your user preferences to ignore positive votes for comedy, and put extra value on informative votes.
Then, to keep people from spamming up/down votes and to encourage them to think about their choices, they only gave out a limited number of moderation points to readers. So you’d have to choose which comments to spend your 5 points on.
Then finally, they had ‘meta moderation’ where you’d be shown a comment, and asked “would a vote of insightful be appropriate for this comment” to catch people who down-voted out of disagreement or personal vandetta. Any users who regularly mis-voted would stop receiving the ability to vote.
I don’t think this is directly applicable to a federated system, but I do think it’s one of the best-thought-out voting systems ever created for a discussion board.
edit: a couple other points i liked about it:
Comments were capped at (iirc) +5 and -1. Further votes wouldn’t change the comment’s score.
User karma wasn’t shown. The user page would just say Karma: good. Or Excellent, or poor, or some other vague term.
I’d understand using new activity sorting for small communities but for large communities you can’t keep up with it.
I don’t understand platforms like Mastodon that mimic Twitter without incorporating the features that contribute to its popularity. If I were looking for a most recent sorting algorithm I would use a chat.
Well, that would only be implemented if it were offered by the API; otherwise, just use what is available right now, which are votes and the number of comments. I find it more invasive that other users can see the post history in my profile than admins being able to see the amount of time I spend reading each post. Revealing my feed feels akin to exposing my browsing history.
The number of sorting algorithms needs to be much more limited than that; otherwise, it puts too much load on the server calculating all those combinations. It’s important to strike a balance between customization and system performance to ensure smooth operation and optimal user experience.
I thought the ‘hot’ ranking was a mixture of votes and comment engagement?
Hot: Like active, but uses time when the post was published
I do feel like there needs to be some further tweaking, controversial should have a time falloff so it shows recent controversy instead of something 6 months old for example.
Yeah, I believe the “Most Comments” sort should have a time limit too. There is an issue opened about it: Controversial post sort should have time limit
This is not possible because sorting is done in the database, so adding a new sort option requires a database migration with new indexes, columns and updated queries. Not something that can be done with a simple plugin.
@[email protected] in https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3936#issuecomment-1738847763
An alternative approach could involve utilizing an API endpoint that provides metadata for recent posts, allowing users to implement custom sorting logic on their client side using JavaScript. This API endpoint is currently accessible only to moderators and administrators
There is already such an API endpoint which is available for mods and admins.
Where? I haven’t heard any of that.
1·4 months agoI did read the links, and I still strongly feel that no automated mechanical system of weights and measures can outperform humans when it comes to understanding context.
But this is not a way to replace humans; it’s just a method to grant users moderation privileges based on their tenure on a platform. Currently, most federated platforms only offer moderator and admin levels of moderation, making setting up an instance tedious due to the time spent managing the report inbox. Automating the assignment of moderation levels would streamline this process, allowing admins to simply adjust the trust level of select users to customize their instance as desired.
Trust lvls themselves are just Karma plus login/read tracking aka extra steps.
Trust Levels are acquired by reading posts and spending time on the platform, instead of receiving votes for posting. Therefore, it wouldn’t lead to low-quality content unless you choose to implement it that way.
The Karma system is used more as a bragging right than to give any sort of moderation privilege to users.
But in essence is similar, you get useless points with one and moderation privileges with the other.
If you are actually advocating that the Fediverse use Discourse’s service you have to be out of your mind.
You are making things up just so you can call me crazy. I’m not advocating anything of the sort.
Karma promotes shitposting, memes and such, I’ve yet to see that kind of content on Discourse.
Yeah, and the FOSS alternative Codidact isn’t any better. What’s the point of asking for solutions for bugs when even an LLM can solve that already? I want proper solutions to actual problems so that I can find everything in there, not just troubleshooting bugs.
Fopnu seems like the most similar alternative to eMule that is actively maintained. Unlike Soulseek, it can download a file from multiple seeders at the same time. However, the ed2k protocol still has around 100k users compared to barely 500 on Fopnu.