Federation

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/665784 > Some Lemmy instances (e.g. Beehaw) do not support down votes for whatever reason. When an instance does support down votes, authors often get zero feedback with the down votes, which ultimately supports a communities of haters. I’ve noticed some communities struggle to get content because of some malicious down voters who just down vote every post to discourage activity and effectively sabotage the community. > > The fix: > > An instance admin should be able to flip a switch that requires every down vote to collect a 1-line rationale from the voter. These one-liners should be visible to everyone on a separate page. Upvotes do not need raionale. > > Perhaps overkill, but it might be useful if a moderator can cancel or suppress uncivil down votes.

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/664960 > It would be useful to have more refined control over participation in a group. Someone should be able to create a group that gives permissions to specific individuals. A variety of permissions would be useful: > * permission to see that a community/mag ***exists*** (some groups may or may not want to be listed in searchable a public directory) > * permission to ***read*** the posts in a community/mag > * permission to ***vote*** in the community/mag > * permission to ***start a new thread*** in the community/mag > * permission to ***comment*** on an existing thread in the community/mag > > A forum creator should be able to set the above perms on: > * individual accounts > * all users on an instance (e.g. users on an instance `@weH8privacy.com` might be unfit for voting and writing comments in the community “fightForPrivacy”) > * all users not on an instance (e.g. local users only [for example](https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/1576#issuecomment-1611105437)) > * instance IP-based (e.g. users from Cloudflared instances might be unfit to participate in a group called “decentralizationAdvocacy”) > > Settings for individuals should override instance-specific settings. So e.g. a “fightForPrivacy” forum might allow all forms of participation from an instance `stop1984.org`, but if `antiprivacyMallory@stop1984.org` is uncivil, a mod should be able to block all inputs from that user yet perhaps still allow `antiprivacyMallory` to just ***read*** the posts on the off chance of influencing the user to be more civil through exposure to civil chatter. > > **Workaround 1 (Lemmy only):** > > Make an announcement community and make all participants a moderator. Bit crazy unless you really trust everyone involved. > > **Workaround (Lemmy):** > > One community per instance using [instance-specific registration control](https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/209). Still too blunt, cumbersome, excludes mods who don’t have their own instance.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/6251633 > LemmyWorld is a terrible place for communities to exist. Rationale: > > * Lemmy World is centralized by disproportionately high user count > * Lemmy World is centralized by #Cloudflare > * Lemmy World is exclusive because Cloudflare is exclusive > > It’s antithetical to the #decentralized #fediverse for one node to be positioned so centrally and revolting that it all happens on the network of a privacy-offender (CF). If #Lemmy World were to go down, a huge number of communities would go with it. > > So what’s the solution? > > Individual action protocol: > > 1. Never post an original thread to #LemmyWorld. Find a free world non-Cloudflare decentralized instance to start new threads. Create a new community if needed. (there are no search tools advanced enough to have a general Cloudflare filter, but #lemmyverse.net is useful because it supports manually filtering out select nodes like LW) > 2. Wait for some engagement, ideally responses. > 3. Cross-post to the relevant Lemmy World community (if user poaching is needed). > > This gets some exposure to the content while also tipping off readers of the LW community of alternative venues. LW readers are lazy pragmatists so they will naturally reply in the LW thread rather than the original thread. Hence step 2. If an LW user wants to interact with another responder they must do so on the more free venue. Step 3 can be omitted in situations where the free-world community is populated well enough. If /everything/ gets cross-posted to LW then there is no incentive for people to leave LW. > > Better ideas? Would this work as a collective movement?