db0

We have dedicated anti ai trolls who go and get banned from dozen of genai comms, make alts then go and get banned again. We have serial harassers who make dozen of accounts and go and spew bigotry. Your methodology is so flawed, it's laughable. Did you even check the age of the accounts being banned?The amount of comments? The amount of downvotes? Cross-reference with other instance bans? Check if their own instance banned them? Did you have any amount of rigor before throwing out your half-assed conclusions?

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics...

Someone contact the mods of that subreddit and tell them to point to https://join-lemmy.org/ instead of lemmy.world

Things invert when the instance "defending itself" has 1/3rd of the threadiverse active users.

~~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.