Wild ass comment.

Unless you really really need portability between devices

Who doesn’t??? What do you do, copy 20-char randomly generated passwords manually all the time? That’s the whole point of password managers…

I use firefox’s local, inbuilt manager

Browsers are NOT a secure storage for sensitive data, if you want a local password manager at least please use KeePassXC.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that they are disingenuous almost to the point of lying in interpreting that survey’s results. They say that 75% of users are interested in GenAI, when actually what they asked is whether people have used any GenAI at all in the recent past. And that still doesn’t mean they want GenAI in Proton. That’s a pretty significant sleight of hand. The more relevant question would have been the first one on what service people want the most. In that case only 29% asked for a writing assistant, which is still not the same thing as a full LLM. The most likely answer to “how many Proton customers want an LLM in Proton Mail” seems to be “few”.

I believe you need root to access those, plus a file manager that supports it (I use Mixplorer which does). Otherwise, as someone else suggested, you can access them from a computer over ADB or MTP.

Even if its configured correctly to totally obfuscate the data and the final endpoint of the traffic it’s still blatantly obvious that a VPN is in use.

Which is why Chinese users don’t use standard VPNs, they use obfuscated proxies with protocols like Shadowsocks and V2Ray, which mask the tunneled traffic as innocuous HTTPS traffic.

Ah ok this I’m not sure about. I mean, Lemmy added instance blocks as well in the latest release (0.19), but it seems that, unlike Mastodon, this only hides the content from you and doesn’t prevent your content from being sent to that instance. It does seem like a pretty big oversight, but I haven’t found a discussion about this. There might be good reasons why it’s this way.

I don’t think Lemmy does either…? It pushes updates to subs that at least someone on the receiving instance subscribes to (at least that’s how it worked last time I checked). That’s why there are scripts going around for new instances to automatically follow a bunch of popular subs to populate the All feed.

I think Mastodon works in the same way with users, where it sends updates for accounts that someone on the receiving end follows. So if nobody follows you from Threads it wouldn’t send any of your posts there.

a long form nuanced take

interesting, however have you considered pee pee poo poo

Truly a worthy contribution to the discourse, thank you…

ActivityPub doesn’t just push everything on a server to every federated instance like a fire hose. In the first place, as Masimatutu@mander.xyz said, it only feeds your content to an instance if somebody on that instance follows you, which you can set to require your manual approval. Your posts could also get pushed if somebody else boosts your post and they have followers on the other instance.

However, if you set an instance block, none of your posts get sent to the instance, period. They would have to resort to scraping. In other words, if you don’t want to give meta your data, just set an instance/domain block.

Yeah what’s being described there is basically a P2P model. I still think it wouldn’t make a huge difference in the chattiness of the protocol. At best it would redistribute the load for outgoing federation messages, but not for incoming ones. An instance still has to receive each message individually, regardless of where they comes from.

I understand the logic, and you’re right to think about how improve Lemmy’s scalability. But I’m not sure if this is the way to go.

If you build a dedicated federation proxy for an instance, you’ve really just slightly moved the problem. The federation proxy is going to have the same scalability issues, and if anything the total load goes up.

If you build multi-instance hubs, you suddenly introduce a lot of new issues.

• Security: I think Lemmy checks the source of an update to verify that it comes from the legitimate host. You would have to introduce some kind of signatures to verify that the activity originated from the legitimate host.
• Privacy: now your users have to trust the hub owners with their data, not just the instance.
• Motive: who would be running the hubs, and why? They would have to be even bigger that the instances, and there would be much less incentive to do it.

Other people in the thread have already made this point: even with a full mesh network, the number of remote calls made for a single activity is equal to the number of instances subscribing to that activity (plus one if the activity originates from an instance that’s not the host of the activity).

A hub/spoke model doesn’t change this, it just moves the load from the host instance to the hub. The number of connections is still the same: if N instances need to receive the activity, N calls will have to be made. If anything this adds 1 more call from the host instance to the hub.

Even peer-to-peer distribution of activities, mentioned by @hazelnoot@beehaw.org, wouldn’t actually change the amount of calls being made. You still have N servers that have to receive the activity, so you need at least N calls overall. What this would do is redistribute the load better over instances, so the host doesn’t have to make all N calls. It would definitely be an improvement, but it would not be easy to implement successfully, and it would almost surely break ActivityPub compatibility.

The only thing I can think of that would actually reduce the overall network load, though, is batching: sending multiple activities/updates together in a single message. AFAIK this is not supported by ActivityPub, though, so implementing it would mean breaking compatibility, and also implementing an entirely updated version of the protocol (which is a massive undertaking).