Need more capacity for all the liberal tears?

Did this get federated into !lemmy@lemmy.ml from mastodon just because of the @lemmy tag?

That’s pretty cool.

It’s a hookup app, I think it’s optional (I don’t use it myself), but most people are going to want to know that.

Lemmy default UI is worst. It doesn’t even show the link. You have to click it’s title to see the video but it’s visually not a link.

If you click the thumbnail (or the arrow where the thumbnail normally is) it in-lines the video. So it works, it’s just not the most intuitive behaviour.

but set them to pull such numbers in for each post/comment mirrored from another instance.

I think the asynchronous way lemmy handles creating a comment/post and then sending it would make this difficult.

If you’re proposing overhauling the whole architecture of lemmy to use consistent UUID-based IDs for comments, posts, etc. across all instances, that could probably work but there are some edge cases especially with malicious actors, and it would be a huge undertaking.

That was what I was suggesting yeah, version 3-5 look like it could work, you could use the originating server as the name-space, and a local server generated ID for the name. As long as they only use information sent elsewhere the hashes should be reproducible, so you can check that a server is only using it’s own name to send new comments/posts, which should protect against the obvious attacks.

The more I think about it I’m not sure you would even need to use an official UUID system actually, just make something like <originating server>-<id from origin server> as the unique ID?

I agree it would be a big change to make though, especially dealing with all the existing posts.

UUIDs?

Usually if a community doesn’t load the first time, I just refresh the page and it loads.

Noticed this before, it’s quite annoying.

It wouldn’t work anyway, all they would have to do is log out, or view your user page from any other instance.

I’m only half joking.

The Lemmy.world admins already censored at least one entire 3d printing community from their server, (fosscad) because it was about open source firearms.

You’ve not seen the stuff some people print.

How do you stop it just being a popularity contest?

TIL, thanks.

Oh, I assumed those were still considered “open”.

You think every instance should require an admin individually approve every account?

This will not help adoption at all.

Given that the admin of any instance with a single approved follower can see the contents of the community, this idea feels like placebo privacy. The false sense of privacy could be counterproductive.

The only way I can think to federate with something resembling true privacy would be to use PGP or similar. Encrypt the data with the user’s private key, send it to and store it on remote instances encrypted ,and decrypted in JS on the user’s computer. That would require users to mange private keys which they would no doubt lose, and be a lot of work for a pretty niche feature.

One thing that would be useful is having the per comm option to disable downvotes. So comms vulnerable/liable to this can just turn off downvotes entirely

If it was deliberate as you say it wouldn’t change much, they could just hit subscribe, downvote, then unsub.

Sort by “hot” kinda does that, but still not enough.