Discuss. (But plz, it’s only interesting to hear from folks who have some healthy degree of contempt for exclusive corporate walled-gardens and the technofeudal system the fedi is designed to escape.)
And note that links can come into existence that are openly universally accessible and then later become part of a walled-garden… and then later be open again. For example, youtube. And a website can become jailed in Cloudflare but then be open again at the flip of a switch. So a good solution would be a toggle of sorts.
maybe instead of linking, just copy the content here. The link can still be there in addition to that. If its not pasteable then i dont know.
It’s a decent approach but incomplete. Couple problems:
- Lemmy would not host youtube videos. YT transcripts could (and should) be part of the post, but then there is the same problem as the next bullet:
- w.r.t text content, some people (very few people) indeed copy the content. It’s failing because people are lazy. Too lazy to check whether the link is in a walled garden; too lazy to warn people of the walled garden; also too lazy to copy the text. Sometimes it’s more naivety than lazy, but same problem: you are relying on the masses to make individual decisions that are wise, inclusive, and higher effort.
A good system is designed with the assumption that users are lazy. As such, Lemmy is poorly designed.
1 lazy author can inconvenience thousands of readers. Lammy’s design fails to address that.
There is no fix. No one is entitled to any and all content.
Maybe piracy? 😅
You’ve misunderstood the problem. It’s not a fix to access content that’s needed. The question is how to fix the pollution: exclusive walled-garden links appearing outside of the walled garden (where not everyone has access or is part of the special club of Google/Facebook/Cloudflare patrons). How did you misunderstand when I mentioned a toggle? And the title… how could I make the title more clear?
My point still stands. The only real solution is to have an open content platform for people to use.
The moment you are using someone else’s platform you loose the rights to the content outside of that platform.
My point still stands.
Of course it doesn’t. Your point doesn’t even grasp the problem. You think the problem is that fedi users have (or have not) entitlement to content. It’s a red herring. You cannot begin to solve a problem you do not understand. It does not matter who is “entitled” to the content. The content is exclusive; locked inside a walled-garden with a gatekeeper. The problem is that exclusive access content is being linked on an open content platform and shoved in the face of readers who do not have access to the closed content.
The moment you are using someone else’s platform
Again, you still fail to grasp the problem. Using someone else’s platform is not a premise. You can either be on someone else’s node or you can be on your own self-hosted node. Either way, exclusive links are in the reader’s face.
How can you get so many things wrong… then you claim using one platform inherently revokes rights outside that platform – of course not. Irrelevant regardless, but rights granted on one platform do not diminish rights on another.
you loose the rights to the content outside of that platform.
It’s not about “rights”. That’s a legal matter. It’s about digital inclusion (a technical matter). People don’t want to see links that exclude them. It’s just pollution.