505
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
505 points (98.5% liked)
Selfhosted
40199 readers
100 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My tin foil hat is telling me it’s one of the other social media companies funding a hacking group to do it. They stand to have the most to lose, and they’ve seemingly decided to enjoy changing the narrative regarding multiple topics. Lemmy stands directly against what the bigger social medias stand for.
I have no evidence to back this though. As a business owner I just know that things become very consistent when people are being paid, and very inconsistent when they aren’t. These attacks are seemingly very consistent/organized.
You think a company that is posed to go public is going to attack a competitor with a minuscule amount of traffic with extremely illegal material that could put them in prison for even having?
See, I don’t believe this was done by a large corp. But all the DDoSing that’s happened? I can see u/spez orchestrating that.
Lemmy isn’t a threat to Reddit. It’s the same old trolls doing it like every other time.
I don’t think they do see it as a threat, I just think spez is petty enough and juvenile enough to do it.
it’s this https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-feel-bad-for-you-i-dont-think-about-you-at-all
Like, again, I pretty solely think it’s spez’s own personal ego shit. For example, he could have just shutdown the API. Instead, he had a weeks-long meltdown including committing libel against a developer. Someone like Zuckerberg doing this doesn’t make any sense to me, but I can totally see spez being exactly that kind of petty.
He’s have to acknowledge Lemmy being a threat, which it’s not, and which his ego won’t allow anyway. The simplest answer is the best.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
agree to disagree?
Reddit? No. I was thinking moreso Meta. They have the deeper pockets and a proven track record of breaking privacy laws to their own benefit.
That’s even worse. Meta probably doesn’t even know what Lemmy is.
So then why was Meta trying to get Threads to be on the Fediverse? Of course they're aware of any potential threats, no matter how small.
Why reinvent the wheel if someone’s just going to hand you the backend? Lemmy is no threat to them.
The threat is a new sustainable community that's sheltered from advertising that people could leave Factbook/Instagram/whatever and go to.
Meta was talking about adding Mastodon federation to their Threads app. So I very much doubt it.
They'd probably take an Embrace, Expand, Extinguish approach.
You would pay a third party to do it. And keep details extremely vague so you have plausible deniability.
Just No, it’s nonsense.
You have a massively inflated view of Lemmy's importance in the social media market.
There must be room under that tinfoil hat for the both of us, because this was my first thought too.
The longer it continues, the more likely that scenario is IMO. Bitter alt-right extremists would probably start losing interest after a short while, whereas social media competitors would stand to gain from long-term interference.
Come on in! There’s cookies.
I'd go with state actors first.
When a particular social media platform is centralized, you can buy yourself a say percentage of stock and have sway over it (cough tencent), or have a useful idiot ruin the platform (cough musk), or another useful idiot to run propaganda you like anyway (cough truth social, cough fox news, cough newsmax...), or yet another that will sell out it's host country's citizens for cold hard cash (cough facebook).
But when that social media platform is decentralized? Well, then you'd need to figure out how to poison the well early on to stave off adoption. The Saudi Arabias, UAEs, Chinas definitely don't like the idea of lemmy, and it'll be way harder for them to control if critical mass is hit.
Yep, that’s a great point.
Add to that the fact that mainstream social media companies wouldn’t touch DDoS and CSAM attacks with a 100-foot pole, even if they contracted with a third party. Both of these attacks are highly illegal and would surely ruin a publicly traded company (or one that’s trying to go public, like Reddit).
And don’t forget Russia in your list of state actors who are threatened by the unrestricted flow of information. They definitely don’t want their citizenry to be informed of how disastrously their invasion of Ukraine is going, or what a murderous scumbag Putin is.
You don't get a lot of upvotes and sure we don't know but it isn't like the NSA infiltrated (in person) left wing groups and more.
It's definitely a possibility that someone doesn't like decentralised content enough to put some meager efforts against it.