I‘ll have a look, thanks! :)

I think a psychopathy index for the fortune 500 would be in order. They get points for displaying features of the dark triad and get publicly shamed for it. Anyone interested in making this?

Rules without teeth are inherently bad imo.

I agree. The „altering“ was meant „without proposing the change to the core protocol“ and as in „doing on your own because you want to be different/working towards proprietary versions“

And thank you. :)

Exciting time we live in! :)

Today must be troll day, honestly.

So, I absolutely meant what I said and giving everyone a chance means exactly that, child molesters, murderers, you name it. You cant deal with that? Then you should choose your words more carefully. It is exactly where we have a problem in our society. People want all of it at once, right now, for free. Sorry, you cant get it. You cant have a space where children can run around and give peeps who have bad tendencies a chance at the same time. The same goes for nazis. You cant give them a chance and have minorities feel safe at the same time. I chose my side a long time ago. I will always protect minorities and will always speak truth to power.

And as I said, I‘m not blaming you for seeing it different. I‘m not making fun of you. Am I surprised? Absolutely! Am I disappointed? Very much so! But I‘m not saying youre dumb or an asshole or anything because I think you‘re entitled to your own opinion. But you’re not safe from me telling you that it has bad implications.

Now I have invested far more time into this convo than I would have liked. You can take my well meaning explanation and go or you can go on being mad about someone calling out the flaw in your logic. Your choice. Good bye.

Ok, so you got me wrong. No harm in that.

Again, I think every instance should do as they please.

My point was coordination between instances if you will.

And I didn’t accuse you of anything. You said we should give anyone a chance and I said no and why, you countered with a reference which I dont think makes a difference.

That was all. Have a good one. :)

But it isnt. Using bots and in the case of meta automatic account creation is the reason the have 100 mil „users“.

The „thing“ we need to fight is greed and people who say all hope is lost are on the side of greed.

Its actually not that many bad actors. The vast majority is passive. The EU is already putting up a good fight and we can do similar.

Don’t think its possible? No problem. Have a good day. :)

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words.

I think you’re not seeing the bigger picture: Give up and leave will have exactly one effect. Less people stand against the “machine” and the “woods” gets more and more cabins until the machine get wind of it and comes there too.

The only solution is to fight it and kill it.

I am pretty baffled at how genius your questions are. This is exactly what I was hoping to achieve. Spark discussion and ideas.

Rn, my motivation behind the user number is that no single corporation or entity can flood a democratic system, which is by definition then immediately under their control, provided their users are agreeing or being influenced which we have seen time and time again. This is why a large entity would need to break their instances down into smaller instances to avoid this and would need to put them under different management. Same as with the EUs anti monopoly laws. I suppose there could be alternatives. Anyone should feel free to propose them.

Again, an excellent question. I have only thought as far as „this post has been powered by meta, get an account at“ and so on… obviously, there are less overt ways of doing this but for swiftness sake I‘d start with obvious ones and take them out, leave the others until a very good proposal is forming.

The motivation against altering the protocol alone is to keep EEE attacks from happening. So, they can propose a change for all, keep to the agreed solution or leave, imo. That way they are encouraged to argue and not just do their thing. One could say if its open source its still okay bit proprietary is absolute no go.

And yes, I agree full. Feel free to write your own ideas of motivations down so we can discuss them. :)

Same answer as before. We would need to find solutions for this as well, together. Thats how teamwork is done.

I‘d say something automatic for things that are pure numbers like the member count. A server is running dozens of operations anyway. If a new server asks for federation, it could get checked for member count and if the count exceeds the arbitrary number (in my example it was 50 or 100 of the rest of the fediverse) the request gets denied.

For more complicated things like pushing ads, one can report a post, moderators bump the report up to the admin and they press „block server“.

Changing the protocol is a little more complicated still. We‘d need to agree what constitutes a „change“, if there are exceptions. Then we‘d look in the logs for suspicious behavior (more like have a script look) and get notified if a server was only sending unusable resonses for certain requests of whathaveyou.

Again, its an idea, something to spark more ideas and lead to more solutions.

I think we’re having a misunderstanding here. I dont mean defederate those who do not agree to these rules but those who break them. Like if lemmy world we’re to get as big as all other fedi instance, they would need to be defederated as to make them help other instances to grow. Power consolidation is bad and this rule would try to preempt that.

No I didnt. Thanks for letting me know.

And my rules are flawed by design. They‘re my first draft. If what I did was perfect I would rule the world, but I am not and nobody is.

Thats why we have democracy. To find common ground. They‘re just an idea, something to help understand an idea and to work off of.

I know they will. my instance is going to defederate anyone who tries this immediately.

This has already been done. There are already instances with shared, written identities. I know you’re trying to portrait it as something horrible but committing to a shared goal is not inherently bad. You could try to actually help people now make the same mistakes again and again.

Who started with an all or nothing stance? I proved you wrong, now you’re upset, I get that.

So again, I think it is every instances right to do as they please. There already are “pacts” in place to defederate certain parties and behave a certain way. it is how laws came to existence, just so you know. Its one or more parties stating their own stance on things and if they can find others like them, they might cooperate. There is nothing wrong with this. I dont even get what your problem is.

Someone gets the fundamental problem. i’m impressed. :) like the person in a car accident that asks people to help or move out of the way being called bossy afterward. :D

But yes, I’m trying to bring people together. Being upfront and transparent about it seems to be a good way to at least lessen the potential for bad actors to pit us against each other. Call me paranoid but I’m fairly certain we’re helping whoever wants the fediverse to fail by getting at each others throats every time a new “giant corporation” or “morally corrupt actor” knocks at our door.

Which is your right. I stand on the opposite side and say I‘m not federating with „childp*rn.com“ for example. You can do so and tell everyone how you gave the child molesters a chance.

Thank you very much. I was searching for a middle ground or at least a general direction towards it.