What plant is that?
All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
What plant is that?
That’s an interesting idea, but I feel that it overcomplicates things without much benefit.
I apologize if I’ve offended you, as that wasn’t my intention — I’m only trying to understand your opinion. I’m aware that we have different opinions, I’m just curious what your rationale is for yours.
replying in individual comments is stupid and more confusing.
For clarity, would you mind explicitly stating why you believe that atomic comments are intrinsically more confusing?
What do you mean by “it’s standard”? As in that is the intended functionality? It shouldn’t be — the whole point of blocking instances is for the user to be able to, well, block an instance, ie content originating from it no longer shows up.
How about supporting users who want to improve their community instead of finding a new one?
I support that as well. My initial point was from the perspective of users not originating from lemmy.ml being annoyed with how lemmy.ml is administrating itself. If the users of lemmy.ml wish to stay to try and improve it, then I fully stand behind them, but, at the same time, I still support lemmy.ml’s autonomy.
It’s breaking the stated aim of open federation by tampering with comments, posts and mod records, which in turn get propagated or de-propagated to connected instances, right?
I’m not convinced that this is in conflict with the aim of federation. The whole point is to give people the power to create their own instances with their own rules instead of having to rely on a single central authority. The network isn’t necessarily distributed — it’s decentralized. An instance can administrate their content as they see fit. An instance cannot alter the content produced by any other instance. An instance can only manage the content originating from itself.
but 1) one instance (particular a significant one like ML) affects other instances
Would you mind being more specific?
they’re breaking the spirit of their own software by shamelessly abusing admin powers, in turn helping to normalize that behavior to the Lemmy side of the FV.
Hm, well, it depends on your perspective. The whole point of the Fediverse is to give people the freedom and power to control how they interact with the service. A server has the freedom to associate with the users that they wish in the same way that you have the freedom to consume what you wish. The spirit of the software is to enable people to have this freedom that otherwise wouldn’t exist with a large central service. The way I like to look at the Fediverse is where each instance is like a country, and each community is like a regional/state/provincial government within the country, and federation between instances is like cross-border policies between nations.
a supposedly transparent […] social network?
I’m not sure what you mean by “transparent”.
a supposedly […] user-run […] social network?
It is user-run, in that any user can create an instance.
a supposedly […] P2P social network?
It’s not P2P. A P2P network would be distributed. The Fediverse is decentralized.
For sure. What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to be confident in the privacy of software if one were to treat it as a black box, ie an average consumer.
Hm, I feel that it’s inaccurate to say “we wouldn’t be able to tell”. It’s not exactly a black box system — the app would have to run on an operating system, and if you are able to know what the operating system is doing, and what instructions are being executed by the CPU, then you can know exactly what the app is doing.
What the aforementioned bits of information provide is the ability to treat software as a black box and be sure of its safety without having to fundamentally audit it.
If this is in reply to the second quote, then I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make. You appear to be opposed to atomic comments because you don’t want to scroll for context, but the alternative, which I outlined, is a comment containing quotes for context — and to solve what you are describing, you would require the entire thread to be contained within the comment, which would still require scrolling. Neither option really addresses your complaint. Imo, atomic comments come the closest, as the scope is kept restricted per thread.
You could have support for this thing in the board’s software, but I don’t think it’s common. So normally, where a post will have at least a header, sometimes also a footer, multiple posts means duplicated data on screen. Pretty minor though.
Support for what? I’m not entirely sure what you are referring to with this section.
I think it fragments the workflow a bit because normally you can just quote a block and easily interject your replies + add more quote syntax. If it were multiple posts you’d need to repeat certain steps each time. Personally I want to minimize switches between keyboard and mouse. On mobile it’s more even.
That’s a fair point. Replies do sometimes rely on fragments of information from the entire post, but, even still, one could still just contain that within an atomic reply, but yeah, it would need to be repeated for each part. Personally I’m not bothered by the increase in actions. Generally, one isn’t commenting in a large enough volume for that sort of efficiency concern to really matter, imo.
Essentially, it’s because it’s a monopolistic/anti-competitive relationship, so the producer is able to charge much more than if it were competitive. The producer seeks to maximize profits, and the schools enable them by effectively controlling the market.
I generally try and pick few of the strongest points and reply to those.
This is one possibility, but it’s quite flawed, as you end up losing portions of the conversation.
It’s impossible to debate someone who replies back as you demonstrated above.
It may require more effort, but it’s far from impossible. And that’s precisely the reason why I outlined the second alternative that has atomic comments.
There is no issue with either. I fully support civil criticism and discussion. And I also support users moving to a place where they feel a better sense of community. I think it’s wrong to force people to interact with those that they don’t wish to. This is why the fediverse exists — to remove centralized control over the discourse.
the devs have absolutely no say over how the software being used
According to some recent posts, ML admins (and maybe even mods?) have the ability to erase any record of mod actions, for example disappearing critique of the CCP’s brutal actions in Tiananmen Square that were posted on ML. That left no record in the public mod logs, and the users were never informed that their contributions had been (completely) deleted.
That isn’t an example of them having a say over how people use the software. That’s them using their own property as they wish.
I have Lemmy.ml blocked and I still see them in other communities all the time.
If that’s the case, then that may be a bug. I advise you to report that.
Your apparent antagonism towards the lead Lemmy developer is sensationalist and non-constructive. If you dislike their moderation then the solution is simple: leave their instances and communities. If your user does not reside on their instances then its admins cannot silence you. If you do not participate in their communities, then their moderators cannot silence you. If you do not wish to see their users then block their instances (though, I would still advise against this). Your argument is founded upon the premise that you don’t like their opinions, so just don’t listen. Don’t taint the Lemmyverse’s image with your false alarmism. Be the change that you wish to see. Start an instance with administrative rules that you think are better. Start a community with moderation rules that you think are better. If one finds that they are needing to resort to ad-homenim to gather support, then I would advise one to critically analyze their position and arguments.
EDIT (2024-06-07T19:25Z): From your other comments in this thread I see that you are advocating for the creation of new communities and for people to individually distance themselves from lemmy.ml, rather than defederation. I agree with this. I still disagree, however, with the approach and tone that you used in your post. I think the same end can and should be achieved without ad-homenim attacks.
Ahh, the good ol’ sunk cost fallacy.
Without it being open source and not providing reproducible builds, the privacy claims are borderline weightless.
Thank you!