Removed by mod

I don’t know what you’re referencing specifically; I was temp-banned from .ml for citing accounts from people who used to live in China and left the country as sources for what life in China was like for them, and was provided counter-‘proof’ from Chinese state media. That was basically all I needed to see to understand that, while I’m on board with the stance that western sources are not always accurate, what’s being pushed there is an agenda, not a search for truth.

Removed by mod

And lemminatrix?

Removed by mod

Thanks to all the Lemmards!

Lemmings is the locally accepted term! Welcome to the platform. :)

Sounds like the solution is for you to just start your own instance, create your own ‘free speech zone’ communities, and engage in a ‘censorship-free’ policy there. Personally, I prefer to stay as far away from instances hosting, for example, CSAM and unbridled hate-speech as I can, and the current federation system handles that quite well.

Maybe my lack of understanding stems from a misunderstanding of OP’s post… which to be fair, I found fairly difficult to parse, and based on their responses to your and other posters’ replies, I strongly suspect that’s a ‘them’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem, as it seems everyone else is having an equally hard time understanding what they’re actually trying to say.

I just want to be clear that it is a lack of understanding and not an attempt to be antagonistic. I have no inherent problem with you; we have strongly differing views on a number of important topics, but we seem to be able to co-exist on Lemmy (and even post in the same communities) just fine, which… seems to be a counter-point to OP’s post? But maybe I’m just still misinterpreting what that point actually is.

What I say isn’t censored

What you say aligns with what’s considered acceptable viewpoints on that instance. Take those views to another instance that aligns with different views and you’ll be censored, just like someone expressing dissenting views on lemmy.ml will be. I’m not sure I understand what point you’re trying to make here.

If you want an instance that doesn’t defederate from any other instance, you’re going to be left with very few options, and those are going to be the ones hosting some incredibly, incredibly questionable content.

Sometimes people say Lemmy.ml is “high censorship,” but I’ve never been censored here.

I’d hardly describe this as the product of a ‘great mind’, but I do think it’s important to discuss alternative ways of doing things. There’s some good reasons voiced here for why this (as written) is impractical, and it sounds like a solution with similar goals but better implementation is in the works, so that’s great to see. My favorite thing about Lemmy is that you can post something a bit out there like this and have a legitimate discussion about it; if this were Reddit, it’d have 400 downvotes and a bunch of replies telling me to kill myself, and that’d be the end of it.

Edit: Sorry, thought this was a different reply.

I mean block the instance’s posts from showing up on the community level, which would need to be a new option implemented with this hypothetical system.

Yep, it’s a valid criticism. Theoretically the recourse in that case would be to block the instance entirely, but it’d still require multiple moderator actions (across multiple instances).

In this system, each community needs moderators from each instance it is on. A small instance run by one person would face a challenge finding people to moderate potentially hundreds of communities.

Each instance would be responsible for moderating its own posts, so a single user instance wouldn’t need a moderator at all unless other instances were failing to moderate their content, but I agree, this is a hurdle, and would make it easier for bad actors to go to tiny instances and post spam.

You mention that a user who doesn’t like their instance’s moderation can use a different instance, but this isn’t easy. There’s no account migration at the moment. This is more of an issue with the lack of that functionality, since there are many other reasons people would want to switch instances.

Sorry, I might’ve been unclear - I simply mean that you could visit the community from your instance via that instance - e.g. [yourcommunity]/c/worldnews@lemmy.world - to see lemmy.world’s “view” of the community. Your account would still exist on your own instance.

If this was implemented, presumably it would require merging all existing communities that share names.

A fair point; while it’d benefit some communities to have their content combined, it would not benefit others; this is a very valid criticism.

So all the spam and CSAM would have to be taken down by each individual instance.

Or only by the instance from which they were posted. If an instance is a moderation graveyard and is generating CSAM spam, it probably just needs to be defederated from, but I agree that the necessity to rely on local moderators to cleanly remove a post is a problem with the proposal.

Would also somehow have to find a way for instances to pull the hashtags out of every federated instance too.

If each instance shared a list of communities that it hosts with each instance that is aware of it on first discovery and periodically thereafter, it would assist with this. Wouldn’t need to duplicate the content, just share a list of communities that exists. (I think that lack of duplicated content would actually be an improvement over the current system where, unless I’m mistaken, content is being duplicated, but I might also have an imperfect understanding of how it functions now.)

Well, under this theoretical standard, you’d only be posting to a single community; you wouldn’t be literally tagging communities on your post. The hashtag comparison was more to how you view hashtags on Mastodon (e.g. you’re searching for a hashtag and seeing all related posts from every instance.)

Okay, sure, but the underlying point is that the moderators of that community moderate all posts regardless of their origin, so biased moderators can direct the course of discussion. It’s more a problem for broad topical communities with polarizing topics.

Your proposal seems to target the same issues as with multi-community support https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/818, which just got 6000€ funding from NLnet. Which seems to be a cleaner way of achieving the same goal.

That’s great, maybe it’s (or will at some point in the future be) a non-issue, then. (For what it’s worth I did search for similar things before posting this, but apparently didn’t hit on the right search terms.)

Some suggested points are also against ActivityPub standard.

I’m not familiar enough with the intricacies of ActivityPub to be able to comment on that; this is obviously not a set-in-stone implementation, and it sounds like some version of the underlying idea is possible, judging by the above.

That being said, creating a private instance is a relatively difficult hurdle. By providing private communities, an admin can take care of the hosting, along with all of the other communities, while those who want something more controlled and closed can have an easily accessible option.

That’s fair, and I’m honestly probably just thinking about worst-case scenarios that won’t actually happen. There’s plenty of ways malicious actors could already be doing some pretty bad things and they don’t seem to be, so it’s probably fine.