aroom

He is not relevant

deleted by creator

he surely knows the tech. what’s concerning is how he’s blocking anyone trying to contribute to work on it if it doesn’t fit his agenda. very concerning and self centred. a total waste.

unfortunately he’s not one of the interesting co-author of the protocol. too self centred.

define these people. define these instances. etc etc

what’s your point? anyone can do a screen shot and share it too.

if you want to have a conversation about the content of my post, please keep it on topic : without authorised fetch and a domain blocked at the instance level, the content is pushed.

if you have technical knowledge to add to this or can correct me about the protocol I’m glad to hear it. if not I’m not interested.

Yes and that’s their right.

But thankfully they don’t impose anything to anyone. You had me worried for a minute.

where did you see that the fedipact main purpose was to impose defederation? that would be rich.

I came to the fediverse in 2017, so nothing to do with reddit or meta or twitter.

The fact is here, we have a choice. So you do you.

On mastodon I have an account on an instance that blocked meta and is using authorised fetch (so the proper way to block a domain) : great, my content won’t go there or on any other blocked domains : it’s my choice.

I have another account on another instance that didn’t blocked meta : great, my content will be shared with threads users and I will be able to browse threads.

Choice, isn’t it great?

protecting your content from being pushed to an instance that you though your blocked.
protecting your content from being shared where you though it won’t because of the way things are worded.

yes, on Mastodon when a user block an instance, it’s more like a mute than a block. Your posts will still be available to them, but you won’t see their content.

The only solution if you want to protect your content from being shared on an instance is to block it at the instance level AND that the instance use Authorised Fetch.

Not all instances have this feature on.

it’s not because a product is not made in a industrial fashion that it’s de facto good, sustainable or eco friendly. it’s like calling natural stuff better than chemical stuff. it’s just a common bias.

you can’t get meat without giving a lot of proteins to an animal. at the end if you end up eating this protein instead of giving it to the animal to grow tissue you always will win in efficiency.

some will argue that we can’t eat grass. that’s right we can’t. but with all things considered if we eat proteins from plants we can digest, the balance will always be positive, regarding CO2 emissions, natural ressources being wasted like soil and water, and naturally the cruelty.

some will argue that prairies are stocking CO2. yes they are, but the cattle growing on them will produce more.

some will argue that eating soy will give you boobs. I’m sorry but it won’t. too bad if it’s boobs you were looking for.

etc etc. the scientific literature is quite explicit on this matter. all that I know is that if we decided to switch to a total plant based alimentation right now, we would need a period of transition were cattle or fishing will still be needed in some specific countries with specific ecosystem.

of course, but in this situation it’s pretty simple. how do you act with the choice given.

no. the attitude that is not useful is to make up arguments to justify our choices.

we know the fact. we choose to act on them or not. and this is the same for a lot more topics than veganism.

don’t return the responsibility on the people who act to diminish suffering and waste of ressources. vegetarians like carnists contribute to keep the status quo. it’s not debatable.

you choose to live how you want - within the limit of the law - and it’s totally ok. but own your choices, you don’t need to justify them.

we all are full of contradiction, and it’s more than ok. but don’t make up stuff to make them ok. just accept them.

I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.

For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?

It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.

Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.

they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it’s not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it’s more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.

it’s due to cognitive dissonance.

this argument that non industrial cattle is sustainable is totally moot. please check the literature available.

human are omnivore, it’s a biological trait not a diet. Being omnivore doesn’t mean that you need to consume animal products, in the contrary, it means that you can avoid them and still strive, as opposed as carnivore.

own your choices, plain and simple. don’t blame other for taking action to reduce suffering, CO2 and waste of ressources.

the fact that you label some vegan as purist says more about your own conflicts that the way vegan choose to live. vegan purist is a nonsense. you are either vegan or not.

you choose what you consume, but don’t put the blame on vegan. for me being vegetarian or carnist is not so different. vegetarian are still supporting the status quo and it’s fair to state this fact.

once again it’s your choice. own it.

deleted by creator

Apple Music pays two time what Spotify does. Easy pick between the two.