- Search inside the description of the bookmark, it doesn't.
- Update to a new version of hoarder. Since the software isn't stable, it's a real problem.
- Related to the previous point => More archive formats.
Otherwise, it's a very good software. Easy to use, nice front-end, good UX.
Hey, Hoarder's maintainer here. I'd like to know more about the pain you're facing when upgrading hoarder. All the releases since launch has been backward compatible, and it has always been just a matter of updating the docker images.
Also for searches, Hoarder indexes all the content of the websites it crawls. If it doesn't for you then that would be a bug!
It's again a French speaking initiative (but from a French-Switzerland research collaboration) about creating a recommendation algorithm with a lot of good properties and that scale (check the research paper on arxiv.org : 2107.07334).
It's also a plugin to help then have more data and to be useful for the users (by having an other recommendation algorithm on youtube), a win-win collaboration.
Checking again, I've made a realization: that's the same landing page. Which does actually have the operative information on it, but it's acting half as a landing page for what PeerTube is and half as a call-to-action for where to go. I think this is a bit disorienting: the two different purposes should be split into different pages and possibly even different websites in my opinion. It'd be ideal if what you got as a user was a couple sentences explaining what PeerTube is and then just an interface to find an instance.
I also think a big CTA for "Download App" would be a good addition to the credit of the root comment of this thread.
The top of the page has "What is Peertube • Browse Content • Upload video"
I mean, it could be a bit more visible, I guess, but it's not exactly invisible.
I get the point that maybe have browse content as the main page ... but given that the point of peertube is the network not the videoclient, the current page also makes sense to me.
Actually, there is a lot more. About 30% people (of USA) use TT, ~60% under 30. You guess it, they don't to look only at dance videos. Social media had become a huge source of information for a big chunk of the population.
On TT, and on most social media (SM), what you watch is mainly determined by the recommendation algorithm. This algo can hide subjects the SM can't put ad on but also subjects the they don't like and boost the one they do (shadow ban). That how you politicize SM. That about, the first thing Musk did with Twitter (after firing people).
When it's a state controlled SM, it's more like foreign interference. There is a lot of books about that. It's documented, not a secret of something. Uyghurs for example, have been a subject of ban on TikTok, shadowing it heavily.
But it's not foreign interference, it's foreign media. Foreign media is permissible for Americans to choose to consume and guess what, young people lap it up. That's their right
It could have been if ByteDance wasn't totally state controlled. Also, since TikTok is banned on China, it's not like it exists in China as a media (the Chinese version is called Douyin and basically it's the same as TikTok but with contents from within China only, to not interfere with the Great Firewall).
Also, the concept of "choose to consume" is blurring with algorithm recommendation and optimizing dopamine reward to maximize screen time.
The CCP didn't control of ByteDance to interference with other countries but to be able to control what happens inside China. But now, it's different.
But none of that changes the fact that Americans have the right to consume foreign controlled media. Totally state controlled media is legal to consume and spread and even become super popular in the US. I really dislike the idea that if some content is popular in the US and the government thinks the content is bad, they can just ban it. "Algorithmic manipulation" is a red herring. If people like it, they can watch it. If they don't they don't have to. Doesn't matter who makes it or for what reason
I think I understand your point. Actually, it's a good point.I may have missed it before.
Nobody said that consuming foreign controlled media is prohibited. And banning TT isn't about that. It's about Foreigner Interference.
You said that it's foreigner media not interference. The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media.
The problem is for another country to be able to do mass manipulation. Like the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica manipulation scandal, where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way. Since when you consume media you don't know they do it AND nobody can prove they do it, it's now manipulative and so interference (can also be done over a long period, such as several months or years, to gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable).
If there was a message saying “We recommend this video because we think you'll react like XXX”, I might consider that ethical (there are other problems too, but that's a theoretical example).
You might say that people in the US (or any other country) still have the right to consume foreign-controlled social media because they know they can be manipulated. Even if I agree, I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use.
You might say also that the manipulation can be from within the USA (like with Cambridge Analytica), it's true. That is definitively a good point. And to defend the ban of TT, I will say that I don't have a perfect solution. I don't like the ban of TT either, but it was necessary because of the risk of mass manipulation. We have to come up with a better solution (that we don't have now). Because it may happen soon on X or Youtube and we can't ban every social media we suspect will do mass manipulation on the sly.
I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution. One that will integrate your POV because it's entirely justifiable.
> The difference is that media are verifiable and can be checked by anybody and everybody has the same information. That is not the case for social media.
They can both be checked by everyone and verified. Just like any kind of social media, even Tweets that get quickly deleted by the creators, they still persist online and get analyzed and debated. Traditional media can also take down articles and videos quickly. I don't see the difference, and don't believe there is a legal difference.
> where they push some "ideas" to a very specific population because the data they collected show that you will act or think in a certain way
This is allowed, and attempts by the government to disallow it are against free speech. If a country has several state owned TV channels with differing views, and it advertises them online selectively using a platform like Facebook which connects the different channels to different likely to click audiences, and it's doing so with malicious intent, then thats basically another form of what you call "interference" but it's Americans' right to consume whatever media they want however they came across it.
Again, the intent of the publishers does not matter. The intent of the editors does not matter. Once we agree the government can ban media platforms because of what they push, free speech is seriously eroded.
> gradually modify your point of view and be less detectable
The trick is that you are saying "modify ones point of view" and pretending that it isn't the right of an American to form whatever view they want from whatever content they want. All content is designed to modify your view. Adding new information to your life will modify your view of the world. You are just using a feature of content to argue it should be banned.
> I think it's normal that the state make it difficult to do so. I won't blame people who use opium but I will definitively blame the USA people (or state from any country, here it's USA) for facilitating opium use
But content is not opium, and free speech is sacrosanct because it is the only lever to allow a free society. When you restrict content because you disapprove of the speaker or the message, you create a world where free speech dies. Banning opium doesn't have those consequences.
> I hope you get my point because I think that is necessary for us to do so to come up with a better solution.
I get your point, but I am fundamentally against anything whose goal is to avoid "mass manipulation" that is essentially saying we should ban things that get popular which we don't like. And that's not for the government to decide for me or anyone else. Thanks for hearing me out though. I appreciate that
> They can both be checked by everyone and verified.
No, that not what I mean. What you can't check is that they push something to someone specifically to make that person react in a certain way. That is not verifiable.
Regardless of whether the content is true or false (that doesn't matter actually, or should I say it's less important whether it's true or not, obviously fake news are a problem but less important than that).
> Adding new information to your life will modify your view of the world.
Yes. And you should be able to choose what you add to your life, what you watch freely.
Not a recommended algorithm that nobody understand how it works.
> You are just using a feature of content to argue it should be banned.
I'm sorry ? I don't understand what you are saying here. I read it many times, but I just don't understand what you mean.
> But content is not opium
It's debatable. Nearly 100% of TikTok traffic is recommended (it's an estimation) and as or some years ago(2015 ?), about 70% of Youtube was recommended (given by youtube). That mean people do not expressly choose what they watch and particularly, most of the traffic is compulsive. But it's debatable, you are right "content is not opium" but sometime it's consumed as if it were so how to deal with it ?
> and free speech is sacrosanct
Once again, yes. It's not about the content that is on TikTok, sorry if didn't make it clear. It's not about free speech. You can still say what ever you want. It's again too much power of TikTok.
> I am fundamentally against anything whose goal is to avoid "mass manipulation" that is essentially saying we should ban things that get popular which we don't like
That absolutely NOT my point. Effectively, my point promote to be against "mass manipulation" but absolutely not "we should ban things that get popular which we don't like". Remember that I also regret the ban. I think it was justified but I don't think it's a solution.
As a French, I learn early in life « Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire. ». Which can be translated "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight for you to be able to say it.".
We both agree on that and as I learned, our definitions of free speech are slightly different but the differences are not relevant here I think.
For example and to finish, a "not so good solution" but something that could have been done to not ban TT is to switch the recommendation algorithm to the one of (the old) Twitter (or the current one of Mastodon), where people could have followers and tweets were shown on a timeline from they followers.
Now, I will again take twitter as example. The fact that Twitter (the new one, X) have an Open-source recommendation algorithm make it not ban-able for example.
Not really, twitter/the-algorithm isn't up-to-date and the models must be shared along with the source code but it's an example. What I say is twitter doesn't have a lot to do to make it any ban unjustified, If someone say "there is too much power from the platform (twitter) and there is manipulation from it", Twitter just have to update the source code (and the models) and it's verifiable (with hard work, but not impossible). That the algorithm is biased is not the point, you have the right to consult media you know the algorithm is biased. The point is that the algorithm must be verifiable.
Thank you for the debate. If I don't respond quickly enough, please send me an e-mail at "ache-hn at ache.one".
The percentage of their sales outside China simply means that China is big and they probably dominate sales in China. We already know that. China is so big that probably around 30% of Tesla's sales are actually in China.
What's interesting is how they compete with other brands, and I think the trend is for BYD to increase their market share in all countries.
- Half of the European inhabitant will live in a country with far-right head of state by the end of 2025.
- China will not become the first economy of the world but will invade Taiwan.
- Bitcoin will fall (and ETH/BTC will raise to at least 0.1).
- One Piece will not end in 2025 but in the next few months.
- USA will see another CEO shooting.
- India will become third largest economy in the world.
- China will outperform all other competitors in AI.
- Open Source model to solve simple math problems will be accessible (by the end of 2025).