@paulfree14 You'd think that given that Matrix/Riot is quite modern - mostly written in the last couple of years - that they wouldn't use Google analytics because we now understand the full horrors of Google.
Sure enough, the Riot android app uses Google analytics.
I'll need to check into this more to see what it's actually doing and whether it's turned off.
TL;DR Industry insiders aren't going to save anyone from anything. Tweaking around with "screen time" or interface design or adding extra "street cred" from a younger generation doesn't address any of the real problems with Sillicon Valley.
If any of these rich morons were actually sincere they would have to abandon their business models and start again with federated and distributed systems with no data concentration. But of course they're not going to do that.
"Ideally you'd have an RFC specifying a subset of HTML and CSS that is allowed within HTML mails. This would have to be a whitelist approach, because the rapidly changing nature of HTML makes it almost impossible to catch up. However no such RFC exists."
Bob Mottram π§ β β (bob@soc.freedombone.net)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Jun-2018 16:21:11 EDT
Bob Mottram π§ β β "In order to make any meaningful progress, we must at least agree that the Googles and the Facebooks of the world are not forces for good. On the contrary, they are threats to our human rights and democracy. We must at least agree that they are not our partners, sponsors, and friends, but our adversaries. Even today, we are not at this point. Even today, institutions that purport to advocate for human rights and democracy feature Google and Facebook as partners and sponsors."
A really good example of that was the Personal Democracy Forum earlier in the year, sponsored by those companies and promanently fearuring Google and Facebook speakers. It's hard to discuss what democracy means, or should become, in the internet era if Facebook is dominating the narrative.
At the time when TBL was creating the web in the early 1990s what were called "fat clients" were still quite new. Before then it was mostly just dumb terminals connected to a single computer. Servers powerful enough to host platforms the size of Facebook didn't exist until the 2000s.
So the hardware limitations did to some extent constrain the type of architecture which as possible during that decade there was a growing but mostly decentralized web, with some exceptions like Compuserve.
In reality, they are not real. In fact, while I can say with all certainty this will not happen in the foreseeable future, it is entirely possible that all of the borders dividing all of the countries all over this world could be erased in a single day.
In a sense, we are hostages of the countries in which we are born, held captive by artificial borders. We are not asked if we would like to be a citizen of the nation in which weβre born."
Bob Mottram π§ β β (bob@soc.freedombone.net)'s status on Thursday, 21-Jun-2018 04:55:09 EDT
Bob Mottram π§ β β Reading @aral's blog. We should be trying to move away from centralized systems in a time frame faster than 25 years. What I think we're experiencing now is the end of the second wave of the web (web 2.0) in which silos were considered to be the universal solution to digital service access. The problems of centralization and extractive economics are now becoming much clearer, including to people who are not normally obsessed with these kinds of topics before.
I'm pretty confident that whatever web 3.0 is, it's going to be a lot more decentralized, most likely with a mixture of client/server and mesh. It won't be merely a return to Web 1.0 because we've learned a lot in the intervening time.