That’s an important and valid concern. What if the community federation could allow mods on your instance to ban users from other instances? You’d not see that user’s posts or comments when viewing a community from your instance. The downside is that your mods would have more work.

OP didn’t say force. OP specifically said allow.

This is a really good idea. Multi-instance communities would not just provide content redundancy, but also some load balancing. Each multi-instance community would become it’s own little CDN. Duplicating the data across instances does pose a problem of bloat, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

That system makes the instance a single-point-of-failure for the whole community, which has been a big problem lately. If communities could easily be multi-instance they would have redundancy. That seems like a good reason to me.

I see where you’re going, but I think it’s important to note that the Facebook algorithm wasn’t intentionally boosting hate, it just looks to maximize engagement. The unintended consequence is that hate gets boosted because it gets engagement both from the haters and the hated.

Facebook didn’t generate the objectionable content. They created a mechanism for people to communicate with one another, like radio did a century earlier. Asking Facebook to check to make sure people don’t missuse the platform is like asking radio manufacturers make sure equipment doesn’t fall into the hands of evidoers.

What would you have had Facebook do, specifically? What practical steps are you wanting them to have taken? Could those steps be reasonably taken for every country in the world?

In 1993 Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) started broadcasting hate speach in Rawanda. They used technology presumably manufactured and sold by multi-national corporations who had no mechanism to prevent abuse of the platform they created. Should we blame the manufacturers of radio broadcast equipment for the Rawandan genocide?

What are you browsing with? Connect on Android has an option to block instances.

That’s a lazy answer for being wrong. Seems like you knew the correct word all along, but decided to use an ageist pejorative instead, and now you’re upset for being called out on it.

So you were born in 1996, but the part of your brain that handles coding was born in 1966? How is that possible? Do you even know what a boomer is?

The inherent problem is money. Sites that store and serve text can be very cheaply run. Sites that store and serve video are expensive. The storage and throughput demands are much higher. In order to get videos to load quickly, you need a CDN. Nobody of average means can run a TikTok clone as a hobby.

So should we display full usernames by default? What’s going to happen when someone important, IRL, wants to interact with Lemmy?

Money is the way society allocates resources. All this content is going to need resources. Server hosting, data storage, software development. I’ve already seen some server andmins begin to ask for donations to keep it all running. Is that how we’re going to run this? Is it going to be like Wikipedia, begging for money all the time? Maybe it’ll be like NPR and every server will have quarterly membership drives. I’m down for a lemmy.world totebag. But you can’t enjoy something and then just expect somebody else to pick up the tab. At least not all the time.

That was a great read. ICQ…man that takes me back. How do we let someone make money off the Fidiverse, without giving them any control? I’m new here but I am excited about the possibilities. Internet the way it was supposed to be. Still, it will never be the platform I want, without some investment. Who’s going to invest? Will it be an open, crowd-souce volunteer system? Will that ever make it good enough?