https://lemmy.world/c/politics@lemmy.ml
This suddenly does not work
edit:
It looks like the problem is on lemmy.ml, not lemmy.world
Does not work either.
You must log in or register to comment.
The community was removed from lemmy.ml by their admins. Here’s the reason in the modlog:
Unmoderated duplicate of /c/usa . Any world-related can use /c/worldnews
Lemmy & the fediverse needs to be more modular.
We need… something like a “transfer, merge, fork, split” for communities.
For example, if these guys are just going to nuke that content, another instance should have the opportunity to either fork it, or merge it with another community. Its mostly the same stuff as would have been in c/Politics here.
And what it does now, is it puts even more editorial power in the hands of fewer people (ones that ml probably) don’t vibe with.
Classic boneheaded decision.
We need… something like a “transfer, merge, fork, split” for communities.
People can do it currently. I’ve done it a few times, for all for cases. You just make an announcement on the community, or on !newcommunities@lemmy.world if you are splitting from a power tripping mod.
I meant in a technical sense. As in, hey here is a community with a mod on a power trip. I’m going to clone it, it lives here now: !somewhere@lemmy.world
For example, we could have cloned this sub and its contents and merged it into c/politics.
But then what prevents someone from cloning a community to 50 instances, or cloning 50 community to 1 instance? Seems like an easy abuse vector
Yeah idk. This was a criticism that I brought up of the fundamentals in lemmys structure early on: it selects for, effectively, clones of “whole reddits”, when it should be set up to support more balkanized instances.
Basically, lemmy.ml’s c/Politics is functionally redundant to .worlds c/politics; but thats by design.
What I think would be better would be adding tagging and taking federation a step further. Every post needs a ‘tag’; we steal that part from mastadon. It can have many, but it needs at least one, say #politics in this example.
Then, on instances, federation happens both at the instance level but also at the community level; communities can federate with other communtiies. But all posts get #tagged on the way in the door. Communtiies can then federate or defederate at will, and if neccessary, a community can “branch”; for example, maybe they want to split off US politics from politics; then you grab all the posts with the #US.
As far as an abuse vector. Thats just hang wringing. IF your mods are that abusive for a large sub, you’ve got way bigger issues. Which, if it did ever happen, is something that “forking” would solve. Mod on a power trip? No problem. Fork the community.
Seems like lemmy.ml is really collapsing in on itself. Overall not good for the general health of the fediverse. We need large “sibling” instances rather than monoliths like .world, which is to say nothing of the politics of the instance. The fewer “medium” to "large’ instances are, the more reliant the whole system becomes on “very large” monoliths like .world, which overall weakens the integrity of the network.
This also highlights the destructiveness of toxic moderation. There is plenty of it here too, but there needs to be some kind of accountability/ redress if open & free communities are going to be a long term project. Not really a big deal in the long run and something we’ll just have to keep working on.
Nah .ml dying is great for the fediverse. Actually the denizens of .ml dying irl would be great for the world too
Wow, that’s a pretty discussing comment. You do not agree with a few peoples views, do generalise and want them to die. You’re worse than tankies.
Tbf, if he said that about nazis, who want to kill a bunch of people, he’d be applauded. He instead said it about tankies, who want to kill a bunch of people, but they like to wear red. That was his real mistake lol.
I’m on that instance and not a tankie. I’m politically left, but object completely to authoritarianism and justification of atrocities.
So yeah, I get annoyed when pricks generalise and wish my death upon me for thinking maybe we should help the poorest in society and don’t think the super rich deserve every penny they get.
I find it ironic when people are hating on one political grouping and their conduct is no better than the ones they despise.
Well get used to it, generalization is what people do, they love it, I’m doing it right now, it’s a function of the human brain seeking patterns. They’ll decry it against their group and use it on another group in damn near the same breath, welcome to the world. We even have phrases for it, “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch” and all. I bet if I scrolled through your comment history (I’m not gonna, but if I did) I wouldn’t have to go too far to see you generalize about a group commonly perceived as “all bad,” I’d guess it’s republicans, probably say they’re all racists or all nazis or all X, it doesn’t really matter, point is the odds that you do are higher than the odds that you don’t.
What you are referring to is heuristics. It’s simplistic. Effective for wild animals that require processing of complex information quickly to escape predators for example, but not so much for civilised humans that require a greater deal of accuracy.
You demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the approach by assuming I’m a Democrat or even American.
The skill is in understanding the process, the flaw and developing a capability for critical thought. You’ll get there eventually, hopefully.
You demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the approach by assuming I’m a Democrat or even American.
Actually I assumed you’re a lemmy user, of which I’ve yet to meet one who doesn’t generalize republicans whether the poster is american or not. Not without reason, mind you, many republicans are say, racist, though many are not. It serves as a damn fine example of exactly what I’m referring to and is also a generalization in and of itself, which doubles back to make my point again. I understand the process, and in fact at times see value in it rather than simply nature at work, the trick is knowing what to do with the generalization. Should you hate X because X usually Ys? No, but if Y is an undesirable behavior trait in X you should at least find out if they Y before becoming entwined with them somehow.