Self hosting isn’t really compatible with viral content

The post I was replying to claimed virality and self hosting are at odds with one another because it causes skyrocketing expense. My point was that maybe someone selfhosting a server in the fediverse is not as interested in virality. And I doubt even the most viral posts in the fediverse would break the bank of a selfhoster

Virality is nowhere near the only reason for posting videos. People post them to make jokes, teach something, reply to someone else, etc, or all the same reasons someone might make a blogpost or a post on a link aggregator.

Theres no web app? That seems short sighted. You apparently cant access anything without logging either. I dont expect these shorts to get much viewership if you have to register and download an app to see anything. It also doesnt seem in the spirit of the fediverse

Maybe the problem in that equation is the expectation of virality and not self hosting?

chat apps and systems like Twitter and Mastodon aren’t a good place for journalism

Super agree with that. Framing this feature as specific to journalism was a poor choice. The feature is useful for any writer/blogger/joe schmoe on the web

Doing an AMA on mastodon would be a horrible experience for everyone. Others have pointed out the obvious difference in reach, blocks/defederation means some ppl may not even be able to participate, participants might never receive questions, users from different instances wouldn’t be able to see sibling comments, etc.

PWAs were not liked when they came out.

By some ppl. There were also ppl who did like them. As soon as the desktop support was axed, fans of the feature started complaining immediately.

at the time, people in general did not like PWAs as a concept. Independent of the browser

Again, I think this is a sampling issue, because my experience was the complete opposite.

And one of the key parts of PWA features was the “Progressive” part. The site works without those features and you don’t have to use them so removing the support never made much sense to me.

on-demand pods that travel on existing abandoned railways.

They’re reusing existing tracks.

I could see walking through a debug session document with a junior dev to guide them on how to debug classes of issues better. Or if they’re running into a bug and ask for your help, you could write out the first few debugging steps and let them take it from there. That might be easier to understand than “I’d check service X and see if it’s processing Y like it should or just passing it on to Z”. Having a defined way to explain how to debug an issue could be useful

What legislation like this would do is essentially let the biggest players pull the ladders up behind them

But you’re claiming that there’s already no ladder. Your previous paragraph was about how nobody but the big players can actually start from scratch.

All this aside from the conceptual flaws of such legislation. You’d be effectively outlawing people from analyzing data that’s publicly available

How? This is a copyright suit. Like I said in my last comment, the gathering of the data isn’t in contention. That’s still perfectly legal and anyone can do it. The suit is about the use of that data in a paid product.

I’m not familiar with the exact amount of resources, but I know it takes a lot. My point was about what specifically is in contention here.

Also, you were the one pointing out that this case could entrench “giant fucking corporations” in the space. But if they’re the only ones who can afford the resources to train them, then this case won’t have an effect on that entrenchment

Harvesting the dataset isn’t the problem. Using copyrighted work in a paid product is the problem. Individuals could still train their own models for personal use

There’s no way Mozilla is replacing Google as the default, so what are they actually announcing here? I didn’t read any actual results thats happening. Are they just adding Qwant as an option in the search engine settings?