What about “We Fedicast”?

I think some people don’t give any room to breathe to projects that just want major contributors be paid, even when, as you rightfully say, XMPP had the same compatibility struggles in its infancy as Matrix implementations now have.

So far, there is a lot of FUD around newer protocol and that it lacks in openness. But if you look again, it recognizes versions and differences between them in the specification. Every MSC proposal covers the context of change and recommendations to implement, while keeping backwards-compatibility with older software in mind. If you make a proposal, it will be reviewed. If you need someone else besides Spec Core Team members to move it forward, flag to you - fork. But I rather prefer this model in upstream than beating around the bush and electing someone who might have lost an idea of why they are still in the project.

This is terrible news. :( Sorry to hear that work makes you download from proprietary store front. I suppose, expecting phones with LineageOS, CalyxOS, GrapheneOS, etc given for work purposes is a bit much at this moment, but at least side-loading should be provided if we’re to avoid monopoly. To me, it’s never healthy if organization is fixated on using only the single app kit for everything.

What you guys call “swipe typing” is actually a glide typing, right?

Sadly, not yet. (Also missing this feature.)

I hope to impose a better question: why would it not cost the developer? $25 may be a steal for some, but I don’t think a proprietary store really deserves so much attention from primarily FOSS developer.

@melroy This is stupid YouTube… Anyway, if you’re on the legs, try Grayjay for Android. 😉👍

A fun story: I was curating my magazine on Melroy’s instance and didn’t butt heads with any regression when he switched from Kbin to Mbin. Nice to see priorities set straight on migration!

It’s a fun idea to explore, which is why I didn’t nod it off. 😄 Imagine: PeerTube channel as a magazine (under the hood, it’s a link between video posts made by actor/boosted by ActivityPub group and magazine entries). Not only we’d have a way to preview several videos on a singular page, but also see description and likes. There is certainly a room for improvement in this model, just leaving it here before I forget.

Hello! I had the same question and I’ve got a perspective from one fellow contiributor: Matrix thread. (There’ll probably be an error when you first open it: join the room with your account and try my link once more.)

You know when some people are just inferior: despite many communities going on a protest and being marked as private, each of members suspecting nothing or drowning others remains a priority…

Oh, I almost mistook this with my own post :) Anyway, that’s a good coinkydink, because I extensively use Kdenlive for anything between long videos and short memes, and I happened to come across the Creative Freedom Summit this year. Good talks.

Whether the meme is meant to be shared in some other context or not, I think, is the decision that should be based on the sum of copyright liberation and how generalistic the contents are. Today, I can’t bear a thought of reposting some stranger’s niche meme on social media without at least attaching a source or creator, because I’m most likely making one more point where engagement with the same meme ends - and reposting full works doesn’t qualify as commentary/criticism/research, so it’s not a fair use, to begin with.

That’s why we are correct of assuming the worst from the bots: programming any fair use considerations is left to gather dust, as it’s ultimately something that human has to decide.

You only need to recall where it took the Internet Archive, no matter the intent it has. But let’s presume for a minute that a lot of it is educational: does unsolicited art reposting constitute an educational purpose, commentary, criticism, news, or a parody? If all that fails to meet, at least work with the portions that you’re taking.

It does not merit a verification of the author, when you hold their content encaged somewhere they did not approve yet. You say it’s to increase registrations on Fediverse and for the brighter future, but please remember to deal with this ethically. Creator deserves to know first that your mirror (or whatever ends up being) intends to seek engagement with their piece.

Linking to original, as we both proposed, is an aftermath. Top three factors also need to be addressed if you claim fair use.

As an alternative, asking for consent and delaying repost is not a rocket science.

TINLA: factors for fair use don’t seem to align, though.

• Such use does not characterize commentary, parody, etc. and is not transformative.
• Post may prove to be substantial on its own, especially if it’s an art piece.
• Most of the work (individual post) or crucial parts being used.
• Since there is most likely no thorough link to the author’s website or profile, they lose the audience - nobody will go to look up the same post twice, not through Google and Google Images, especially.

About that last point: solvable by manually gathering authors’ links or making a hyperlink to respective Reddit profiles.

The argument can be made that bots measuring the content are no better than some random dude on the Internet reposting shit they like. Situation becomes worse when that same “bot” doesn’t credit the author proper.

Isn’t this like stealing, guys? No, not from Reddit - from authors. Ask for a consent before mirroring anything, for the love of Fediverse. Cheers!