4 ms·
It depends on whether or not the author's politics bleed into the software or somehow influences the user-base; which could be disasterous. I think with Lemmy,
by malicka 3y ago
It depends on whether or not the author's politics bleed into the software or somehow influences the user-base; which could be disasterous. I think with Lemmy, though, there isn't much risk for that.
- bioemerl 3y agoThere are literally advocates for a genocidal state. Their politics are going to bleed over into the software eventually. To think otherwise is deeply naive.
- malicka 3y agoI just don't see how they could manipulate, outside of their own servers?
- bioemerl 3y agoSoftware updates. The fact that they own the main domain and the main server means they can choose who to federate with cut off large parts of the network at a whim. The fact they own the software means they can make it easier or harder to surprise or spread certain messages, and do so in very subtle ways. Do not confuse open source with safe, something can be open source and be abused even if it's able to be self-hosted.
- malicka 3y ago> The fact they own the software means they can make it easier or harder to surprise or spread certain messages, and do so in very subtle ways. I just can’t imagine how, honestly! It’s not exactly trivial to programmatically hinder certain messages in a way that others won’t notice and complain about — as they did when Lemmy had hard-coded blacklists for slurs. If anything, they'd abuse their control of the Lemmy.ml server, like you said.
- bioemerl 3y agoAll you have to do is do something like sneak in telemetry, add some sort of back door, who knows. There are near infinite opportunities for a bad actor to sneak bad code in, so when you're dealing with a bad actor you just don't trust anything they do. Running code from people who are tied to an authoritarian government is not something you should be doing ever.