Show newer

Does anyone know of a contact app that allows fine-tuned control over what contacts (and data) get shared when you allow an app to access your contacts?

It could work something like: when you first allow contacts, it gets nothing, but then you open the contacts app and allow the app to have access to certain information about certain types of contacts.

@eest9 made a good point: Silencing instances does just this.

(I'm still thinking through more Fediverse moderation ideas though)

CC @fluffy @jordan31 @zudn @JeffPaetkau @kevin @arh

Show thread

Idea: make user and instance blocks that are default for new users, but can be removed by the user.

This would enable admins to silence toxic users on other instances, but still enable users to disable those for themselves if they wish to see the blocked content.



Power was transferred peaceably and there was no more violent insurrection (contrary to what the conspiracy theorists predicted).


Correction on defining illiberal democracy: it doesn't necessarily mean one party has control. It means more that whatever happens in government is not public and has limited checks and balances. It's not "liberal" in the sense that it does not respect individual liberties.

Show thread


America, on so many levels, is going in the direction of what is known as illiberal democracy. It is a form of authoritarianism which claims to have democratic elections but is really controlled by a certain class, party, or individual.

No, I am not just referring to the political right or left, but rather the nation as a whole.

In George Washington's farewell speech, he warned:

> [Political parties] are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

I believe we are seeing this today. The engines of the political parties in power today have become as Washington outlined. They are subverting the power of the people to control the government themselves. They are now destroying the means by which they have obtained their power.

Again, this isn't about any specific situation, event, or party. It is an observation on the political state of our "United" nation, and, I believe, the whole world.

> Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.
—Winston Churchill

The philosophy of admins for blocking certain voices should be: "I don't want to help propagate this" rather than "They shouldn't be allowed to say this anywhere and no one should be able to listen to them."

For the record, I support blocking hatred and do so myself, but they still have the right to speak. We shouldn't be pushing to remove their voice altogether.

Because where does it end? After hate speech, censorship turns to politics, and that contains so many gray areas that it turns to censoring opinions with which we disagree. Turning people against each other.

Block evil. But let people voice dissenting views. This is the foundation of democracy.

Show thread

I dislike Gab, Parler, etc. I resent their moderation policies and that they allow evil to propagate. However, the obsessive blocking of them is downright scary. Specifically when we block everyone who says anything that even questions that premise.

I sympathize with those who want to block such instances, but I ask admins to sit back and think about what they are doing rather than block as a knee-jerk reaction.

There is also a difference between blocking violence and blocking dissenting views.

Posting this was a perfect example of Cunningham's Law in action.
> Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

(I'm not totally convinced I'm completely wrong, but I'm going to read more to understand the concepts better)

cc @eschatosoof

Show thread

I might be totally off here and "dividing soul and spirit" improperly with my own words . :P

Show thread

Christian philosophy 

The Triune Nature of Humans

According to the triune idea of humans, we consist of three main essences: body, soul, and spirit. These three are mentioned often in the Bible in distinct situations.

The body is our physical existence. We experience the world through our bodies. We see each other's bodies. This is straightforward.

The spirit is our spiritual existence. It is what enables us to talk with God and to have an existence beyond the physical world.

The soul connects the two. Unlike the others, it doesn't exist in either the physical or spiritual sense. It is a philosophical idea of the continuity of existence.

When a 90-year-old man recognizes himself in a photograph of himself when he was 10, what makes them the same person? All of his cells have changed. You can hardly say they think alike. They are "different people" in almost every way. They share little in common.

However, the continuity of existence remains. You can follow a continuous thread of existence throughout his lifetime. You can watch as he ages, and gradually changes to who he is today.

This is the soul. It is our identity. It is the continuity of our own existence. It is the thread through our lives.

Animals can also be said to have souls. You can follow a continuous thread in their existences as well. However, they do not have spirits. They have no way to connect to the spiritual realm. They are stuck in the physical.

When we die, our bodies die, but our spirits remain. Our spirits hold onto the continuity of our existence and bring it beyond the physical.

In the resurrection, the duality of the soul and spirit is rejoined into the triune nature of body, soul, and spirit, as we were initially created.

Just some thoughts. I'm willing to clarify these points and to be corrected by appropriate scripture references.

Deletion, deplatforming
What do we want to see?
Should we exclaim, "good riddance"
Or shout "freedom of speech"?

Social networks are inherently addictive to some extent. Facebook, Instagram, and the like play on this to make their networks as addictive as possible.

Ethical alternatives should not only reject doing that, they should also work to make the services *less* addictive.

Devaluing numbers of followers, likes, shares, etc. is one step in that direction.

I'm curious about other methods. Please give your ideas.

Pure white world again
Small children rolling snowmen
The second snowfall

Show thread


As most of us know, there were protests and violence at the Capitol building in Washington D.C.

These protests were started by Trump's call to protest the theft of his supposed landslide victory.

The protests got out of hand and became violent. Including breaching security of the capitol building itself.

I believe Trump's call to action was not meant to incite violence, but he did not do as much as he could have to end it (Pence did much better).

Peaceful protests are a constitutional right. Violence is not. Several people took advantage of the situation to cause chaos.

Give people the benefit of the doubt, and do not assume conspiracies until more information is available. Lots of people are quick to accuse. Wait for more information before jumping to conclusions. This is new, starting yesterday. Calm down.

Josias boosted

i am hiring for a few freelance gigs: web designer, html/css developer, golang backend dev, video production assistant (premiere/ae) - email me if you're interested or know someone who might be interested.

There's also a new image UI, giving you options to reply, favorite, or boost it.

Show thread

Mastodon now lets you boost your own private posts with original visibility. Nice.

Show older

Josias's choices:

There's Life

A family-friendly social network (Mastodon instance) devoted to the new life found in Christ.