Not really clear at all, hence why we get into this crap to begin with.

In “ineligible” meaning that states can nominate a particular politician, however if they win, must they be rejected by the House of Representatives? If so, states can put Trump in all the want, and it’s up to the House to decline.

Alternatively, does ineligible mean that states are prohibited from running elections w/ invalid candidates from the choices? Then, who decides a candidate is invalid?

If someone else buys the domain, then your instance likely won’t exist anymore and you’ll have to get a new domain.

Spend the $12/yr on a .com, it’s a lot less of a headache in the long-run.

It’s not like we can expect people to read beyond the titles. Reading comprehension doesn’t exist on link sharing sites where blasting comments reigns supreme 😂

Welcome to new Reddit. Same behavior as old Reddit but I guess with less Spez. 😉

Someone disagreeing with you isn’t shilling.

I’m not sure why there’s so much concern about hostility being a new thing when Threads comes in. Responses like the ones you’ve replied with demonstrate the existing userbase already has a few toxic apples.

I haven’t missed the point, I simply disagree with your assertion. The advocacy to preemptively defederate from Threads is grounded in unsubstantiated FUD.

Meta is a trash organization and I think it’s completely fair to approach this with skepticism and some “fuck Meta” attitude. After all, Meta has a demonstrated history of promoting toxic social media habits.

I think, broadly speaking, the fediverse’s exaggerated takes, misinformation that’s outright lies, and aggressiveness on this issue is showing that corporate owned social media isn’t the only harmful social media though.

Facebook/Twitter/etc. had a financial incentive for divisiveness and uncivil discussion. The fediverse doesn’t have this incentive. It’s people voluntarily choosing to do it themselves on the platform they wanted to use as a lifeboat, except now it’s spread out across several servers.

Yes, but the point you’re trying to make doesn’t make sense. The content subscription model for both of these are completely different.

On Twitter (erm, I bounced shortly after the X shenanigans…) you subscribed to people and mostly saw tweets of people you follow, and the tweets they re-tweet, so it’s heavily individual-curated.

On Facebook you “subscribe” to people and groups. Because your feed is mixed between people and group posts, you’re still getting a mostly-curated feed from friends, with algorithmic posts from groups. In the last few years they started blending in posts from groups/pages you aren’t in if your feed doesn’t have much content.

Lemmy is entirely different. You only subscribe to communities. The curation is moderation style and upvotes. Individual people can guarantee their way into everyone’s feed by posting to the most active communities.

That is exactly how it works. If your users are abusing your instance, it’s on you as the instance owner to decide whether their usage is inline with your expectations as a host, or if they’re better served elsewhere.

Honestly I’m just super lazy and a bit ADHD. The more work a chore requires, the less likely I’m going to actually do it, so it’s just a personal hack.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with any approach as long as you can commit to doing it. It’s just a matter of finding something that you’re able to stick with. Maintaining cold backups is annoying lol

On your second point, it’s worth calling out that a lot of folks on Lemmy today came from the Reddit API changes. These folks left a very, very active site to a network with substantially fewer users and less content, and still pales in comparison.

I think this serves as sufficient evidence to show there’s a large enough group of people who don’t care for the size/activity of a social network and participate on the principle of less-VC/Wall St funded social media.

I don’t think EEE applies here. Worst case a bunch of servers defederate Threads. If the ActivityPub protocol gets terrible influence from Meta, the protocol spec can be forked.

If, on the unlikely chance, the Lemmy devs start becoming Meta advocates and add ads in Lemmy, the software is AGPL3, it can be forked.

Look at how Linux works around corporate abuse, especially with the Red Hat nonsense. As long as enough people care, a fork is made and maintained, and users will come.

Have you actually tried using Lemmy from Mastodon or Twitter-like-focused ActivityPub server? It technically works, but through no fault of Mastodon nor Lemmy, it’s a pretty miserable experience. The feed is nearly impossible to use for communities that get frequent comments through the day.

There is a 0.00% chance Lemmy has anything to worry about. If Mastodon isn’t a tolerable client for Lemmy, Threads’ substantially worse feed management will be much more miserable and enough of a deterrent by itself.

If your users are subscribing to 10,000 accounts who spam so badly that it causes resource issues, that’s not a Threads issue, that’s an issue of who you allow to use your instance.

Adding more people would dilute some of the excessively frequent ragebait posters…

It’s like the same 2-3 dozen people.

There is no point to defederate threads.

If folks find the content on the instance I maintain interesting, I want them to join from whichever platform they feel most comfortable with. As long as they don’t cause problems, that is.

The fediverse’s worst enemy is itself. The persistent paranoia that people are out to ruin it is going to drive all the rational people away.

Yeah, and your way can give you a free off-site backup.

I guess if you really wanted to optimize to minimize the number of backups to take, you could just take one of the drives to the offsite location as part of the rotation.

Say if you have 3 drives, you’d always keep your second oldest copy off-site. You want your most recent backup on-site for convenience of restoration, and you want your oldest on-site to use to take a backup without driving to your buddy’s place first.

Let’s say your drives backup schedule is quarterly and with 3 drives, and the backup dates are: Drive A: Jan 2023, Drive B: April 2023, Drive C: July 2023

Now it’s October. Use Drive A for your backup since it is the oldest. Now Drive B becomes your oldest

Take Drive C, the now-second-oldest, to your buddy off site.

Bring back Drive B from your buddy’s place since it used to be the second-oldest and is now the current oldest

When it’s time to rotate the drives for backups, do a backup to the oldest drive first.

Take , do your backup to your oldest drive locally first, then drive offsite to drop off your now-formerly-newest drive, and bring back the off-site drive as the oldest.

It might be worth keeping a text file log of what’s on there at least.

Music is almost by-far the easiest to “restore”. In the event you lose everything and don’t want to spend time restoring it all, you can fling money at Spotify/etc and use a service that automagically imports playlists.

The other stuff? That’s going to be insanely annoying to back up and insanely boring to rebuild if it’s a super-huge collection. Personally, if it’s something I think I’m going to watch in the future I’m buying the bluray/dvd and keeping it on the shelf (more-so for that it works as a conversation piece).

I only care to have a solid backup strategy of stuff where there is a 0.0% chance to rebuild like personal documents, photos, and videos.

Fortunately, since you “only” have 2 10TB drives (I’m assuming as a RAID1 array), consider this:

1. Buy a 12/14/16TB external drive (just in case you upgrade disk space in the future, you’re using this drive so infrequently it’ll last you a few years easily)
2. Take a full disk backup, put a physical label on it with the date, store the drive in a safe
3. Wait 6 months, buy a second 12/14/16TB external drive – you’re almost guaranteed to get a drive in a different batch, and if you really want to amp up the paranoid factor, go for a different brand.
4. Back up your data to the brand new drive, put a label on it with the date, toss it in a safe
5. Wait 6 months, grab the oldest drive, replace it’s contents with a new backup, throw new label on it, toss back in safe.

Generally speaking, this will give you at least 1 backup that’s no older than 12 months, and 1 backup that’s no older than 6 months. The only risky time where you’d lose a backup is when you’re replacing the oldest backup.

IMO this 6mo strategy is a fine compromise on cost, effort, and duration of loss of data but tweak as you see fit.

There is no way “EEE” is applicable here outside of spreading FUD. The biggest risk to the Fediverse isn’t Meta, it’s other Fediverse users.

The collective fediverse’s userbase is nothing more than a rounding error to Meta. They probably have to delete a magnitude or two higher number of spam accounts each day.

Threads is 50x the size of the Fediverse and is growing significantly faster. Twitter users are almost certainly their priority.

Meta is probably only using this as a way to convince regulators they don’t need regulation and so some director can put “changed the world” on their resume.

If anything, it’s easier to pull people over because their friends who refuse Mastodon/etc aren’t holding them back.

And the absolute worst case? Meta ends up contributes junk to the ActivityPub protocol or Mastodon, the community forks it, software gets patched to adopt the intricacies of whatever changes are needed to defang whatever controversial stuff gets added in, and everything carries on.

The most realistic concern is the communities that provide a safe space for those regularly subject to harassment online may start getting unwanted attention from trolls. After all, this expands the potential audience from 2 million to 100+ million.

Thank you for pulling forward a comment to explain this better. I thought the two cases were different but didn’t remember how.

Right, but that will also mean that the community will no longer be “big”. That’s my point.

My best counter-example is to look at (well… pre-Reddit-API-controversy…) r/ask_historians. It’s one of the largest subreddits that became notorious for it’s very strict moderation. If a big community is defined by either user-count or unique participating users (as a proxy to gauge how close-knit everyone is), I think it classifies as both easily.

Even after it became very tightly moderated, it’s subscriber count generally tracked the growth rate of other subreddits. Even if the unique participant count growth rate is lower than other subs, I don’t think it ever felt “close-knit”.

If mods started going as far as deleting threads on the basis of “this discussion is already beaten to death and is not bringing anything new”, you can bet that this will be taken as an act of “censorship” and will cause everyone to leave to form their own factions

Participation in forums isn’t (entirely) a zero-sum game. Groups of people can break off and still participate in the old space.

There’s also no realistic way to handle users that default to not trusting moderators who are trying to make a good-faith attempt at community building. It’s a cooperative exercise at any scale.

• except maybe the ones that are aligned with the mods enough to understand the principles behind the decision.

IMO this relationship between users and mods is the only one that matters. Assuming the mods are acting in good faith, this combination seems to be the only way to grow a community that won’t implode on the first bout of controversy.