db0

~~It seems the blahaj links don't work anymore~~

Wait no nevermind. Tesseract frontend is fucking up the URLs

yes and i responded to that. discussions happen either way. u can have them happen before drafting a vote text, or after. whether users have the energy to engage in them before voting can be up to them.

Honestly, I disagree. Doubling the amount of governance posts and extending (potential) decisions over multiple weeks just will lead people to check out of the whole process. I've seen very similar stuff in reddit/r/anarchism and I don't want to end up in a similar scenario.

u seem to have skipped over my most important points in our discussion so far. namely the idea of a "discussion-post first, then vote-post" process (separate from proposal, amendments, etc.). and that the admin team is responsible for 100% of the voting posts so far, and therefore sets the example for regular (eligible-to-vote) users who might want to start a vote.

I did mention that having too many governance posts invites voting fatigue. This applies here as well.

As for having the regular people start a vote, the 2 times the post was opened at the request of a specific user, it was because they explicitly didn't want to open it under their own name, because they didn't want to invite abuse.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little peach?

ACAB. Nothing good will come from inviting state-violence into this.

I get the problem, this is why I also allowed the donation avenue as well (even though that can also be manipulated). You can be a supporter for like 1$ per month. Maybe less on liberapay.

If you have any ideas on how to improve the vouching culture of the instance, I'm all ears.

As for consuming just one comm, a lot of clients allow you to have multiple accounts, it shouldn't be too onerous to make just one feddit.org account for that comm and switch to it to see what's new.

mathemachristian just pinged me with the results of his investigation proving that this is a fake

This reinforces my thoughts that this was an deliberate disinfo attempt, and the feddit crowd felt for it hook, line and sinker. Just pathetic when the whole charade collapsed under the smallest of pushes, and ffs, who seriously tries to paint anarchists as neo-nazis?

For anyone who's going to try this again, a reminder that I have an online presence going back 20+ years, or which 17 of them was in anarchist spaces as well and I've been consistent in my beliefs all this time. You're going to have to try harder than that to prove I've been playing a long game of a couple of decades...

i do need to wait, since i dont have voting rights. ive had issues with where the instance is going for a while, so i couldnt justify making a donation so far.

Your other option is then to become a valuable and visible enough in the instance to be vouched for. You can also just ask the admins or another person with voting rights to open the thread for you. Ultimately we need to have a way to limit manipulation somehow.

ideally a software could handle that in the background, yes. but there're lemmy apps that support blocklist imports already, so i could already do this. id just need to manually update them by hand, or id have to write a script to automate that.

OK so you can't do it already, you could just theoretically do some work to do this in the future if you wanted to.

I just have to ask, if this sort of instance already exists, and this sort of shared blocklist is so easy to implement for those who need it, why is it not enough for people who want to, to use those instances and shared blocklist software?

I think you have a misapprehension about how our decision making works. Specifically, just because a vote is taken and goes one way at one moment in time, doesn't mean we cannot open another vote, or amendment about the same subject later on. You also don't need to wait for unruffled to make governance posts. Any person who can vote, can open governance posts.

theres a fundamental difference, tho: i can override the blocklist. i could make my own patches to it, but still keep the list updated. also, i could opt in/out at will without changing to a different instance with a different community and rules and governance.

Assuming the software handling the blocklist allows this. Likewise there could be threadiverse software that allowed soft defederation and people overriding it, but nobody built this yet. Anymore than they've build this shared blocklist format you imagine.

Anyway, this tells me you effectively want to run your own instance, without running your own instance. But as I said, there's instances that allow you to do that. Ours isn't meant to work this way.

We once had a "moratorium" about using the -f switch on console commands (for those who don't know, -f is typically --force AKA, "execute this command no matter the consequences, I know what I'm doing.). I'll let you imagine the cause but we all knew who it was about.

Another time we had an incident where the whole login process died for the whole day. Next day we were cc'd on an email informing us that security team is not allowed to use scripting anymore :D

Reddit and Xitter has shown us that humans are extremely "sticky" creatures unfortunately. It takes a lot of effort and pain to get people to change their habits.

Generally any attempts to restructure decision-making need to be also counter-balanced against the realities of running a social media and the fact that people are here for the social media, and not for the decision-making. I.e. introduce too many discussions and processes and you end up with people checked-out from the whole process due to "voting fatigue". We've tried to structure our decision-making process in a way that tries to make it as smooth as possible within the confines of the lemmy software and doesn't require endless rehashing.

Yes a consensus vote is superior to majority vote, but I think it's just not feasible with 1K+ Monthly active users. Even the discussions in the current voting threads become almost unmanageable. Consensus is great if we could organize the FAF around small instances based around affinity groups, where each affinity group would do a consensus process and bring the results to a larger confederation decision making, but the realities of webhosting and alienation make this practically impossible. But it's nevertheless what we've been trying to soft promote with the FAF itself.

Yes vouching should be more common, but at the same time, it's not easy to understand who someone is from online comments, and fascists, entryists and wreckers are really fucking good at pretending just long enough to get such approvals, so I understand people being cautious. And the other part is that people just don't bother to understand how to vouch for others.

Second approach, maximal autonomy:

This is just not a practical approach, especially in a very hostile online space, inundated with fascists, bigots, and so on. A lot of people join our instance because they don't want to take the immense amount of effort needed to curate each and every interaction reactively. A lot of people want to just join an instance and use the threadiverse without having to worry about encountering, say, genocide apologists in every discussion. Is there space for such "manage your own blocklist" instances? Sure, there's already plenty of them out there such as lemmy.zip and many people flock to them for precisely that reason. But not every instance has to work in that way and we choose not to.

And shared blocklists are effectively the same thing we're doing right now, only with more steps in between. Instead of trusting the admins of your instance, you're now implicitly trusting the blocklist curators instead.