Post @post@qoto.org

@jakob

It would if it was `@arminwolf@arminwolf.at` without the need of another server (soc.schuerz.at).

What Friendica is doing is having RSS->AP bots as a built-in feature. It suffers of the same problem of bots: there can be multiple unofficial bots and each of them depend on a third-party service (other that my instance and the feed i.e. the Friendica instance or the instance of the bot).

@jakob

The Web is full of RSS/Atom feeds that will never turn into AP actors so I am saying that there should be a standard way to treat RSS/Atom feeds as publish-only AP actors.

You can tell this is properly implemented if you can see all the comments from other instances (known to yours) together under the same article from a feed.

@EU_Commission

EU will just collapse soon or later and we will be able to better coordinate without you, your lobbyists and your mercantilist and neoliberal competition between countries.

@jakob

The same result of using ActivityPub plugin for WordPress but without it because all it does is publishing articles as an AP actor and we can share/comment/like them.

I don't see why we can't stop requiring a website to be a publish-only AP actor and just look at its RSS/Atom feed.

@ProfLouiseL

Tories? I thought you had a referendum?

@jakob

I don't want a RSS/Atom reader integrated in my Fediverse instance. I want to be able to share/comment/like posts from a RSS/Atom feed and other Fediverse users to see them like with any other ActivityPub actor but that is publish-only.

For example to have a shared comment section for every RSS/Atom feed from the Internet.

@lordmax @privacity @scuola

*servizi di multinazionali: basta che abbiano una sede legale in UE e che i server siano fisicamente in EU

@nhan

Thank you for letting me know.

@nhan

Users should educate themselves on privacy? No, this is not like using Google or Facebook, this is on a totally different level: OpenAI is officially criminal in Italy.

When a person uses a service it is assumed to be private by default and if something is shared you are supposed to accept a (ideally clear) privacy policy. Is this the case with OpenAI? No. Will it be the case with Logseq? I fear not.

I just can't accept this hypocritical attitude of giving away responsibilities by fooling people into agreements: the basis of individual sovereignty and freedom is the **informed** consent.

Also here the major issue is Logseq cheating on its users. I sponsored a project whose tagline started with "A **privacy-first**, **open-source** platform..." and I discovered later that it is not fully FOSS (and the closed source module is even the most important one: the one responsible for e2e encryption!) and that it using those money to integrate the biggest threat to privacy ever!

@nhan

No, PKM + ChatGPT is too big of a threat for people in general. Logseq would send big chunks of personal information to a company that can do whatever they want with that information, even providing it to other users.

In Italy the court that is responsible to protect people privacy blocked ChatGPT for their blatant violation of privacy laws and in theory other European countries should do the same because of the GDPR.

People are not aware that what they write to ChatGPT is to be considered public and associated to their profile like in a social media platform. And it is way worse than Twitter, Facebook, Google etc that at least have GDPR-compliant privacy policies.