Correct, there’s currently no way to migrate post / comment history to another instance.

Surely we’ve all seen it before at this point, but it’s never too late to be reminded of The Enigma of Amigara Fault.

That would make Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa the only places in the universe an American can’t vote for President

An American who is registered to vote in a state can vote from Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands or American Samoa just like an American who is registered to vote in a state can do so from another country, or from space. An American who is not registered to vote in a state cannot vote from anywhere, regardless of where that is.

Maybe for some folks…

Giving the statues “an orange makeover” implies something a lot more permanent or at least harder to remove than high-vis vests. If someone tells you they “got a makeover”, when in reality what they did was change their shirt, would you not think that was a little disingenuous?

I’m not being critical of you, or the protest, to be clear, I just think the title is a poor representation of what happened.

I feel like this title is intentionally misleading, probably trying to draw parallels to the defacing of Stonehenge with orange powder.

They put orange high-vis vests on the statues. No damage was caused.

Incidentally it’s a lot easier to take legal action against a business that violates the ADA than to take action against a government that insists on defunding programs like that.

Every time you look at the app, they share the time you’re seeing with every other user, it’s a privacy nightmare!

if you have a more effective metric in mind, I’d love to hear it instead of just pointing out flaws

I mean, isn’t the whole point of this comment section to discuss the merits and flaws of the proposal you’ve made? If we’re not discussing the downsides, too, what’s even the point?

That said, an ideal system would be a measure of the quality of content, not the quantity of content so, as another user has suggested, some measure involving net upvotes might be more effective. Yes, obviously a user can create multiple accounts to upvote everything and fuck with that metric, but I kind of doubt many folks would go to the trouble.

Maybe some combination of PCM and the average number of votes divided by the number of active users could generate some sort of quality metric. At the very least it might be a measure of engagement.

Spam Resistance: Creating multiple accounts to inflate MAU is easy. Generating meaningful posts and comments is harder.

Isn’t this actually just spam encouragement? A community with a bot that posts 50 low-value posts every day will have a much higher PCM as a result, and that behavior is more obnoxious to users and moderators who have to see it and deal with it, vs. someone creating a bunch of accounts, which is largely invisible to everyone else.

Yeah, the ghetto is always a ghetto. A trailer park can be a ghetto, but isn’t always.

I know you probably love a dozen tracks, please pick one, thank you in advance.

YOU HAD ONE JOB

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.