I don’t necessarily agree that decentralized is fractured by design, nor that “working as intended” means that it’s the best solution for this/every situation.

I’m saying that as we decentralize, we get both advantages and disadvantages. I’m saying that this is a situation where we can’t both have our cake and eat it too.

For example:
We could decentralize communities themselves, preventing them from fracturing. Instead of having communities hosted on a single instance, communities could be feeds aggregating all posts tagged as belonging to that community. Then if you defederate an instance you simply stop seeing posts from users in that instance.
But then good-faith mods are defanged and can no longer protect vulnerable community members from antagonistic actors.

I think my straw example tradeoff is a bad one, that’s too much decentralization of power.

I actually already discussed that if you go back and read the comment that you’re replying to

But again that fractures the community.

You lose all the community history, and not everyone migrates to the new community. You end up with a bunch of new splinter communities, none of which have critical mass to survive.

I’m talking about systemic solutions for the general problem of bad-actor mods.

Defederating an instance is fracturing the community which difficult for a community to withstand with our current user numbers.

Giving mods less power, such as making communities themselves defederated, makes problems for good-faith mods who are trying to protect vulnerable community members.

It’d be neat if the community itself could vote to migrate to a new instance, but that’d be so fraught with abuse that I can’t see it actually working.

I don’t think there is a solution.
Effective moderation to protect vulnerable people needs more centralization. Avoiding the influence of bad-actor mods needs more decentralization. The two seem fairly mutually exclusive. Or rather, they trade off against each other.

With more users, having a fractured community wouldn’t be a huge problem, because they could all have critical mass. But with the current user base that is generally not feasible, even for really popular topics.

Deviled eggs. And quiche.

It was the other company CEO with dubious ties.

Wait… Who is “it” in “it’s CEO”??? Which CEO has ties?

I guess I’ll have to actually read the article.

Oh this is neat. I wonder if the license will accommodate my work (and my work is willing to allow a nonstandard diff)

I think it’s a good idea, but we have to be careful about the effect of malicious instances pumping up their own user reputations and lowering reputations of other users, maliciously.

Ideally these instances would be defederated, but sometimes it’s just communities within an instance that it is problematic. There need to be solutions to this, as well as a way for the reputation system to retroactively change reputation upon defederation of an instance, or banning of a user.

We both have issues. But as I said, at least I have a modicum of self-awareness.

I don’t expect you to go back and check, but I think you know that’s not how the hostility started.

Anyways, I’ll lay off now unless you ask a question or say something wildly out of line, but I’d like to part with this: your take here doesn’t seem to align with other things you’ve said in your (public) comment history on your (public) profile. We’re all forced to play the capitalist game, but you’re not going to be rewarded for this kind of devotion to your boss.

Sorry for catching you in your hypocrisy? 🤷

How do you reconcile what you’re saying here with your anti-billionaire stance on your other comments? Sometimes someone needs to hold up a mirror.

Only to fascists and bigots.

I feel like there should be a mechanism to block posts but allow comments

You talk like a bootlicker. At least I have a modicum of self-awareness.

No, you’re right. Being fun at a party of techbros is totally a sign of superiority and not at all a sign of sociopathy 🤮

Tbf you’re probably not a terrible person, but that is a bad take. Rejecting someone based entirely on education, and not allowing for other factors (as is implied), is just bad for both your company and society.

Let me rephrase, to make myself crystal clear, because you didn’t get the tactful approach: that’s a shitty filter. By excluding people without a degree, you’re saying that ability to afford university for 4 years is more important than skill, experience, or knowledge.

It shows that you’re ignorant. It shows that your company has a toxic workplace.

It’s probably one of the dumbest flexes I’ve ever seen.

I have a bachelor’s of computer science, but some of the best coders I met just did a 2 year community college diploma.

I don’t think that spending lots of money on education is really a great litmus test, it’s just one minor indicator.

It should show up in community search even if they’re not constantly pulling down every single post of those communities

Language snobs will be snobby.

Meanwhile sublinks will enjoy a much much larger potential developer pool; how many people are actually proficient in Rust? It’s an awesome language and it’s getting more popular, but it’s nowhere near the experience base of java.