obi 🍍 @obi@qoto.org

@oldjacket I have been off for a while, so I hope this info is accurate. No, the instance will decide which servers to follow, and will show up in the federated timeline. However, you can mute some of those servers, so they all won't be showing in that timeline. I thought a few years ago he was working on a way for a user to add specific servers, but don't know if he did it or not. I will look into it today and try to figure it out.

@oldjacket If you are looking for a specific person you want to follow you can search against all followed federated servers to find the person.

@keuningin I too am interested in hiking 😋

@mrcippy Hi, fr13nd.

@chimera respect

@Tcjc @lig how about we don't decide who incited violence and leave it up to the court. If any incitement is credible it could be prosecuted. Its already against the law. Big tech is trying to be a prosecutor without hedge, jury, or defense

@blueberry should have went up then. What's your total credit to utilize?

@blueberry all about that credit utilization percentage. Too low and too high of a % = bad

@randynose @SDF u

@urusan I'm not really down with mob rule, which is why I'm not really on board with that. Otherwise its solid.

@randynose @SDF what OS u runnin'

@jamesnvc @urusan I've always advocated for the creation of my Government, Randomacracy. SS numbers chosen at random to serve. Can't be worse or more corrupt than the current system

@urusan weird, I find getting nothing done, unless on bipartisan support, the best feature of the legislative. I guess I thought of that as the point. I prefer to have equal members of both parties (even tho I don't like a 2 party system, nor like either party) so that only things that we all agree on get changed. We have 10s of thousands of more laws than we did in the 50s, nationwide, and most (not all) are stupid to me.

@randynose @normand @Matter and that's fine. Options are great. Forcing companies to offer competitive search engines on initial setup is what I'm arguing against

@normand @Matter @randynose I'm on board with government regulation of data collection. Absolutely. Its secretative, invasive, and most people don't even realize it occurs. I'm not on board with forcing companies to opt into a search engine, by an arbitrary selection of competing search providers, when people can do it manually now. If there wasnt a way to switch your search, my response would be different, but my 7yr old switched hers by herself on her most recent laptop.

@Matter @normand @randynose what I am trying to say is fix the problems. If Google is raping you for your data, saying that we should have more choices on who rapes us is not the answer. Stop the data rape itself.

@Matter @normand @randynose I agree, attack the data collection, not force an arbitrary choice. How do we decide which choices in search engine that they have? Give them 3? Which 3? Top 3? Best 3? How and who decides which ia best? All search engines? That would be a long selection, and who decides which order they go in? Who decides which are best? Some corrupt suit in an office? All they would do is choose on brand recognition anyway, cuz they don't know anything. You can't help people who don't help themselves. Their are choices, but they have to make a conscious (minimal) effort to decide which one they want. I think our fundamental disagreement is that you think government knows best. Maybe because you believe they are an extension of the people. They should be, but definitely aren't.

@normand @Matter @randynose does a blind man really care which brand water he drinks?