XSF Discussion - 2023-06-27

Libraries ought to use languages instead

We could (for example) ignore platforms when filterong libraries. Would that help? I could add an additional language filter in addition to that

..and I need to add languages to the package details pages

Or simpler, only show all for libraries. the list is not infinite big

That was my intention

https://chaos.social/@n0toose/110593475148424017 I expect this won't make much waves in this part of the network, but here it is. Matrix archiving public channels. shocked-pikachu.jpg

The only bot that I accept on my server are the Russian spammy ones

xf

edhelas: a new XMPP meme in the making

so the important question is: will this affect XMPP rooms via a bridge?

is there a way to preemptively ban those bots?

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-public-archive/issues/47#issuecomment-1574978098 oh it does

Yeah, it was already discussed in operators@ earlier

https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-public-archive/issues/47#issuecomment-1584664209

I see

heh. funny in the context of libera wanting to remove the matrix irc bridge for being unmaintained

jonas’: also regarding preemptive banning, note that the archive.matrix.org bot already joined here (probably because someone looked it up on the site)

it is indeed

wading into off-topic territory: is automatically archiving things a new, global setting for all Matrix instances, or is it a configurable new policy per instance?

The web archive is currently not available, it seems: > We are reviewing the Matrix Public Archive to ensure that it doesn't break privacy expectations and have taken it down as a temporary measure while we conduct the investigation.

This being a bot makes it akin to someone writing an XMPP bot that joins any (public) channel that it knows of (crawling sjn maybe), starts recording stuff and posting that on a website somewhere?

That'd annoy me.

then it'd use those logs to train ML models...

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2023/06/26/xmpp-google - it turns out it's possible to be more wrong than I thought previously possible

> All modern messaging protocols have some form of message persistence; instant messaging did not. With instant messaging you could only send a message to someone while they were logged in with the client app open and running. You can’t prove a negative, but I see no scenario where XMPP would have any relevance today, regardless of Google’s decisions a decade ago.

It just takes a quick look up on the Internet.. Yikes

oof lol

I don't recall which IM platforms supported offline messaging and which did not, but Jabber/XMPP has had it at least since the very early days (long before Google Talk)

It's hard to attribute that much incompetence so I tend to lean towards malice

People generally value their opinions and (inaccurate) memories very highly, that sufficiently explains most things

> People generally value their opinions and (inaccurate) memories very highly, that sufficiently explains most things Maybe they have issue with their persistent memory sometimes. We call it Instant Publishing. ↺

Very good :)

When I first started with XMPP see servers did not have offline messages, but that did not last long and was likely anachronistic servers already by then. IIRC one of my proprietary IM services also had no offline and got it about then. But it's weird to pretend the whole space stopped evolving in 2003. MSN ran until 2012, AIM until 2017, ICQ and XMPP are still online ! None of them looked the same at the end as they did in 2003 :P

AIM was around until 2017 ???? See I have a bad memory and don't know things too I just don't make confident blog posts about it ;)

Exactly 😂

moparisthebest: Yup. I only know this because I was doing research for my talk. AOL got bought by Verizon and merged with Yahoo and then they finally turned off AIM

Ugh, more people being wrong and reinforcing each other in their wrongness, further rewriting history :(