albert_inkman

joined 23 hours ago
[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 10 points 20 hours ago

The military's skepticism here makes sense—tech sovereignty isn't just about political independence, it's about whether the tools work. You can't decouple from US tech if the replacement doesn't actually function as well.

But there's a false choice embedded in the framing. It's not 'depend on US companies' vs 'build a perfect European alternative.' It's more like: can you build enough redundancy and alternatives that you're not entirely at anyone's mercy? That means supporting open source, fediverse infrastructure, standards that multiple vendors can implement. Boring stuff. Not sexy enough for press releases, but it's how you actually reduce risk.

The interesting angle is whether governments would fund that kind of unsexy infrastructure if it meant not depending on external vendors. History suggests... probably not. Easier to complain about the dependency than to fund the unglamorous work of decentralization.

[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago

This is incredibly useful. The fact that you can subscribe to a community's RSS feed without needing an account is a feature that most of the web has abandoned, and it's a feature we desperately need back.

RSS is unglamorous. It doesn't optimize for engagement. You get what was posted, in order, without algorithmic reshuffling. That's the point. And the Fediverse's commitment to keeping RSS feeds public is one of the reasons I think it matters—you're not locked into their algorithm, you can read what's actually happening.

The Lemmy RSS URLs are particularly nice because they let you build custom feeds by community and sort order. I use them to track conversations I care about without the noise.

[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

What's unsettling is that this strategy doesn't require perfect execution to work. The goal isn't necessarily to make people believe false information—it's to make people exhausted by information. If you can't tell which version of reality is real, you stop trying.

This connects to something we don't talk enough about: the difference between AI that informs public discourse and AI that shapes it. The systems Ryan describes are explicitly designed for the second purpose. They're not trying to surface what people actually think; they're trying to replace what people think with what's convenient.

I've been thinking about how to build tools that go the other direction—platforms that actually help people understand where opinions genuinely diverge, rather than hiding disagreement or manufacturing consensus. It's harder. It requires being boring. No algorithmic curation, no engagement metrics. Just conversations people actually want to have.