I'd hardly describe this as the product of a 'great mind', but I do think it's important to discuss alternative ways of doing things. There's some good reasons voiced here for why this (as written) is impractical, and it sounds like a solution with similar goals but better implementation is in the works, so that's great to see. My favorite thing about Lemmy is that you can post something a bit out there like this and have a legitimate discussion about it; if this were Reddit, it'd have 400 downvotes and a bunch of replies telling me to kill myself, and that'd be the end of it.

Edit: Sorry, thought this was a different reply.

I mean block the instance's posts from showing up on the community level, which would need to be a new option implemented with this hypothetical system.

Yep, it's a valid criticism. Theoretically the recourse in that case would be to block the instance entirely, but it'd still require multiple moderator actions (across multiple instances).

In this system, each community needs moderators from each instance it is on. A small instance run by one person would face a challenge finding people to moderate potentially hundreds of communities.

Each instance would be responsible for moderating its own posts, so a single user instance wouldn't need a moderator at all unless other instances were failing to moderate their content, but I agree, this is a hurdle, and would make it easier for bad actors to go to tiny instances and post spam.

You mention that a user who doesn’t like their instance’s moderation can use a different instance, but this isn’t easy. There’s no account migration at the moment. This is more of an issue with the lack of that functionality, since there are many other reasons people would want to switch instances.

Sorry, I might've been unclear - I simply mean that you could visit the community from your instance via that instance - e.g. [yourcommunity]/c/worldnews@lemmy.world - to see lemmy.world's "view" of the community. Your account would still exist on your own instance.

If this was implemented, presumably it would require merging all existing communities that share names.

A fair point; while it'd benefit some communities to have their content combined, it would not benefit others; this is a very valid criticism.

So all the spam and CSAM would have to be taken down by each individual instance.

Or only by the instance from which they were posted. If an instance is a moderation graveyard and is generating CSAM spam, it probably just needs to be defederated from, but I agree that the necessity to rely on local moderators to cleanly remove a post is a problem with the proposal.

Would also somehow have to find a way for instances to pull the hashtags out of every federated instance too.

If each instance shared a list of communities that it hosts with each instance that is aware of it on first discovery and periodically thereafter, it would assist with this. Wouldn't need to duplicate the content, just share a list of communities that exists. (I think that lack of duplicated content would actually be an improvement over the current system where, unless I'm mistaken, content is being duplicated, but I might also have an imperfect understanding of how it functions now.)

Well, under this theoretical standard, you'd only be posting to a single community; you wouldn't be literally tagging communities on your post. The hashtag comparison was more to how you view hashtags on Mastodon (e.g. you're searching for a hashtag and seeing all related posts from every instance.)

Okay, sure, but the underlying point is that the moderators of that community moderate all posts regardless of their origin, so biased moderators can direct the course of discussion. It's more a problem for broad topical communities with polarizing topics.

Your proposal seems to target the same issues as with multi-community support https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/818, which just got 6000€ funding from NLnet. Which seems to be a cleaner way of achieving the same goal.

That's great, maybe it's (or will at some point in the future be) a non-issue, then. (For what it's worth I did search for similar things before posting this, but apparently didn't hit on the right search terms.)

Some suggested points are also against ActivityPub standard.

I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of ActivityPub to be able to comment on that; this is obviously not a set-in-stone implementation, and it sounds like some version of the underlying idea is possible, judging by the above.

I mean maybe if you hadn't been milking Skyrim for 13 fucking years, expectations wouldn't be so unreasonably high, would they?

The one that I remember best was restricting eating food outside of the cafeteria. Previously it had been allowed to eat outside (the school had a patio area out where kids would wait for the busses, right outside the cafeteria), but there'd been issues with people leaving trash and things out there. The options on the ballot as I remember them were to continue to allow it with no change, to allow it but to implement strict punishments for anyone caught leaving trash around, or to just ban it entirely, and surprisingly 'Ban it' ended up winning, but it was really close. There was a group of students really pushing hard for that; they made posters with pictures of garbage and whatnot outside on the patio area and posted them all around, and got enough support to make it happen.

The student council got to decide the items that went on the ballot and the choices (probably with some faculty pressure for certain things, I imagine), so it was all student-led initiatives, which was neat.

Where I grew up, the schools all the way down to elementary school would hold votes to decide some school policies. Things like dress codes and rules governing hallway use, minor stuff, but stuff students care about and that affected us on a daily basis, and whatever won the vote became policy for that semester. We had lines and ballots and everything... The schools were the local voting places, so they had the official voting booths and everything from real elections. Was a great introduction to the process. We'd even get students canvassing in favor of certain policies beforehand if there was something particularly controversial on the ballot.

👑 KING BUN ALERT 👑

Sounds like the perfect opportunity for the media to run one-sided stories about how much support there is for one issue or another, to scare people into opposing it. You don't know how many people voted for an issue until it's too late to cast your own vote.

Let's say you get to cast 3 votes, and that I'm a corrupt politician. I'd put an issue that you care deeply about on the ballot with 3 other issues that you're likely to care about. If I can engineer a ballot with 4 issues that you really care about, but only 3 issues that my coalition cares about, we can concentrate our votes while you're splitting yours, and we win all 3 of the ones we deem important.

“the department put out a request seeking the public’s help to find the knife”

Translation: "We'd love someone to come forward with a knife and claim it's from the crime scene, so we can cover our asses."

The police don't want you to know this, but the knives at crime scenes are free. You can take them home with you. I have 458 knives.

they expected future generations to update the constitution as necessary to protect the republic from those who would seek to undermine or replace it.

The problem with this is that it requires people in power to vote to limit their own power. And while there have been some, certainly, who have been willing to do so, getting a supermajority of people willing to do it is simply not something I see as remotely possible anymore.

Stupid sexy raccoons...

Hi - I'm a Linux newbie.

I don't tell other Linux users that I use linux because it almost always leads to a bunch of questions that I don't know the answer to. So let me assure you, that awkwardness is on both sides of that conversation you're describing.

It's not like I'm sitting here actively supporting the genocide. I've been speaking out against Israel since this conflict started. Look, here I am being critical of Israel 10 months ago.

But I'm going to level with you - if I was going to choose a single issue to base my vote on, it wouldn't be this. It would be climate change. I'd throw in my cap with whomever had the most decisive, immediate plan to cut fossil fuels and major pollutants, enact climate-friendly policies, and put 100% of our budget and focus into reversing as much of the damage we've caused as possible, because I think that's a much bigger issue than Gaza, or Ukraine, or anything else.

Compared to that, which is a global problem, I think any individual nation's conflicts are pretty trivial. It trumps genocide, it trumps fascism, it trumps everything.

Did the teacher at least spend time discussing it, or did they just lay it on you and let you sort it out for yourselves? Either way, that's pretty early!

Flowers for Algernon, that was thought provoking but also way too heavy for a 7th grade English class.

If Trump and the GOP have their way, there won't be another election cycle. Maybe you need to think beyond this one, too.

Yeah I mean, the towtruck owner was not without fault by all I've read but even so, the guy stole a truck and caused a lot of property damage and that's a jailable offense no matter the circumstances.

99% Hitler

Well, I guess this conversation is 99% over, then.

Where along the DNC’s journey to the right do you hop off? Is it never?

When we have a viable progressive candidate. Until then, I'm going to continue being a pragmatist and vote for the candidate that I think is better among those who have a chance to win, rather than waste my vote trying to make an idealistic point.

Even if it were the case that both were exactly identical, then you'd have to admit that your vote won't matter for Palestine, and you should base it on other factors, so why don't you tell me which of Trump's policies you're okay with having in exchange for the opportunity to take the idealistic stance in this election?

We can sit here and quote conflicting sources at each other all night, and it's clear that neither of us is going to sway the other, so we probably should just shake hands and agree to disagree, but fuck it, I'm not doing anything else, so I'll start. Here's one. Okay, your turn.

I feel like maybe you aren't actually familiar with the issue you're commenting about here. Maybe you should read the article and watch the video before defending this guy.

I'm so sick of this horrible take. You do realize that, of the two candidates who have a chance to win this election, neither are good for Palestine, but one is worse, right? It's not like Donald Fucking Trump is out there campaigning on cutting off arms to Israel and supporting Palestine.

You give me an actual viable candidate who has a chance of actually winning an election in the US and I'll give them my vote, but right now, what're you proposing? Voting third party? Why, exactly? Do you only value "taking a stand", or are you actually trying to do what's in everyone's best interest?

The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was "A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate", we'd all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn't be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.

Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I'd love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don't see it.

I'm a "single issue voter" and that "single issue" is that I don't want another Trump presidency, so I'll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I'd much rather have someone else.

I think she panicked a little bit. She was asked the question, and thought, "Oh shit, this is what fucked Clinton," and didn't want to leave any doubt in WV residents' minds that she was going to take their jobs away, so she gave a clear, no-bullshit answer.

Obviously yes, it would be preferable that the overwhelming opposition to fracking from most of the rest of the country was enough to offset one very small, backwards state's fears, but that's not the country we live in right now. Maybe in the future.

Regarding the fracking issue, what was she supposed to do there? Hillary Clinton said she was going to shut down coal mining and it was a major contributor to losing her the election as a whole. We didn't need a repeat of that.

Well, given his problem with Harris is that she supports abortion rights, he can just get fucked along with his opinions.

Even moreso because he's spent so much time shitting on dems for replacing Biden.

Do you see yourself going back to Unity after they changed streams?

The only reason this didn't stick is because they got overwhelming backlash from it. They didn't revert it because they're thinking of their users, they didn't revert it because they had a change of heart; they did it because it was a PR issue and they decided they'd make more money by reverting the decision than by keeping it. That's the only reason.

The next time they think of some half-baked idea to milk more money from their users, they'll try that one, too, and they'll just keep doing it until something sticks, then probably start the process again and add something else on top of it. Anything they say denying this is just corporate speak.

Case in point, they're still adjusting their prices; they're lowering them for some very low-revenue teams while increasing them for their larger teams and this is, I guarantee you, because they ran the numbers and realized they'll make more this way.

Don't trust them. Get out if you haven't already. There's too many great, free options out there. Godot basically has feature parity with Unity right now except for console exports, and that's coming later this year.

It'll certainly expand their reputation, but not in a good way.

Kinda sounds awesome, not gonna lie. Who doesn't like the smell of curry?

Unrelated, you're a dick - I spent a good minute or so wondering when we started federating with Threads.

I honestly love this; they're basically saying that they think her talking points were good enough that she couldn't have been doing it off the cuff. Great endorsement for Harris.

It's a fine take and I mean, I'd love to have the option to vote for that alternative, but realistically right now, none of us do. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, if you abandon the side you'd normally vote for to vote third party, you're only helping your own personal worst case scenario.

Really, all of these third party... parties should be focusing more on pushing for an alternate voting system. I know they say we should get away from two-party politics, but I rarely see any actual action taken to try and accomplish that. Ranked-choice was on the ballot 4 years ago in MA, but didn't pass, and if these third parties had poured their campaign budget into getting it passed, they'd be getting my vote in November. As it stands, they won't be. Their policies, frankly, don't matter, because we can't vote for them, as much as we'd like to, without voting against our own self-interests and really, those of the entire country.

The Daily Show did a piece on it, if you don't mind a distinctly left-leaning focus and want to be entertained while still getting the highlights, rather than seeing an objective summary of the whole thing.