That’s a wild interpretation of what they said.

Dude described a branding problem, not a technical problem.

Omg mine too (too embarrassing to share).

I forgot how much more patient with pacing we all used to be back in the 00s. Just trusting that the video would go somewhere and there’d be a payoff.

Looking at some of the popular videos from back then, people these days would just scroll away because nothing hooked their attention quickly enough. Myself included. We’ve been trained to expect such quick payoff 😭.

Fuck, now I’ma have to go check on my old deviantart account.

Sorry, the best I can do is passive aggressiveness and righteous indignation

The data needs to be sent from the voter to the server that owns the post. But the server that owns the post can anonymize the data before it sends it to clients or other servers.

That said I don’t have deep understanding of activitypub. Its possible that something would prevent this, like if votes made their way to the server that owns the post by way of telephone game rather than directly from the client or the user’s home server. But that seems like an unreasonable design, so I doubt (hope not) that is the case.

Yeah, and I think that’s the argument about making it public.

But access rights to stuff seems like the kind of thing that should be configurable, even if it requires a change and isn’t backwards compatible

And that should probably be configurable

Allow it to be configurable by server or community. Some communities may benefit from allowing the public or mods to see votes, while others would be hurt by it.

Servers can see who voted on what, even if the vote is on another server.

So if you view the vote from a server that makes the views public (like a kbin server) or you run your own Lemmy server, then you can see it.

Most clients make having multiple accounts super easy.

Not that I’d know anything about that 🫣

I’m not familiar with those protections, but I’m not confident in them actually holding up in court considering the technical sophistication of the network compared to the technical competence of the courts.

But it’s good to know that there are at least protections in theory.

The problem is we’re not there yet.

There are no protections for me if I unknowingly let some stranger use me as a host or router for CP or some pedo shit. It’s not a risk I’m willing to take. There need to be legal protections in place, like there are for ISPs.

I’m ok with living in a world where liberties are sometimes abused, but I’m not ok with a world where innocents get punished for the actions of strangers.

Do you mean monetization so that instance hosts can recoup costs?
Or do you mean monetization so that content creation gets paid?

I think part of the problem is that many of the p2p tech are caught in a tradeoff between giving hosts control of what they host (and therefore there is content that gets lost), and ensuring content availability (risking alienating hosts).

No way would I participate in a p2p network where I don’t have full control over what I host, for the same reason I won’t use p2p VPNs nor will I host a TOR exit node.
But then who is going to host the unpopular content?

I don’t necessarily agree that decentralized is fractured by design, nor that “working as intended” means that it’s the best solution for this/every situation.

I’m saying that as we decentralize, we get both advantages and disadvantages. I’m saying that this is a situation where we can’t both have our cake and eat it too.

For example:
We could decentralize communities themselves, preventing them from fracturing. Instead of having communities hosted on a single instance, communities could be feeds aggregating all posts tagged as belonging to that community. Then if you defederate an instance you simply stop seeing posts from users in that instance.
But then good-faith mods are defanged and can no longer protect vulnerable community members from antagonistic actors.

I think my straw example tradeoff is a bad one, that’s too much decentralization of power.

I actually already discussed that if you go back and read the comment that you’re replying to

But again that fractures the community.

You lose all the community history, and not everyone migrates to the new community. You end up with a bunch of new splinter communities, none of which have critical mass to survive.

I’m talking about systemic solutions for the general problem of bad-actor mods.

Defederating an instance is fracturing the community which difficult for a community to withstand with our current user numbers.

Giving mods less power, such as making communities themselves defederated, makes problems for good-faith mods who are trying to protect vulnerable community members.

It’d be neat if the community itself could vote to migrate to a new instance, but that’d be so fraught with abuse that I can’t see it actually working.

I don’t think there is a solution.
Effective moderation to protect vulnerable people needs more centralization. Avoiding the influence of bad-actor mods needs more decentralization. The two seem fairly mutually exclusive. Or rather, they trade off against each other.

With more users, having a fractured community wouldn’t be a huge problem, because they could all have critical mass. But with the current user base that is generally not feasible, even for really popular topics.

I kind of agree. I’m not a pro but I’ve been using gimp to do little bits of editing (mostly to make slack emojis and memes) for a few years, and I constantly encounter little things that seem like they should be simple and intuitive, but are not.

I haven’t used Photoshop in over a decade, but I feel like I rarely felt the same frustration regarding basic tasks.

Language snobs will be snobby.

Meanwhile sublinks will enjoy a much much larger potential developer pool; how many people are actually proficient in Rust? It’s an awesome language and it’s getting more popular, but it’s nowhere near the experience base of java.