Open + Captcha

I would absolutely support keeping Meta away.

The known downsides far out weigh the potential benefits.

Is it too late to add the link?

https://mastodon.social/users/QasimRashid/statuses/110589556149485451

Nay.

I don't like bots much, but this is still an assumption. I don't want to get into preventative de-federation, if it is at all possible to avoid it.

The Meta/Facebook instance(s) should be though.

Excess should be used for bounties to get features we want implemented added to Lemmy.

A high enough bounty and they can hire a part-time developer to work on our selected improvement.

CPG Grey has a lot of good videos, but ranked voting is not the way.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem makes this very clear.

https://star.vote/ is a good site to keep handy if you're looking for a more expressive voting system.

By default, choosing approval voting is the simplest way with very good performance.

https://youtu.be/orybDrUj4vA

Try Seal & VLC instead of streaming.

https://github.com/JunkFood02/Seal

https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-android.html

Also, LibreTorrent is useful for when you want to download something small.

https://gitlab.com/proninyaroslav/libretorrent

They've been essentially read-only for years, in my experience. It's stupid to go closed source, but they weren't easy to work with to get things fixed before now either.

A moderation bot that collated reports against rules and selected active users to vote on if the rule was broken or not seems like a useful thing to create to me.

Batching these into small groups and assembling a jury to decide if a particular rule was broken by each of the 1-7 reported posts should be a short task for the people involved. As long as the same people don't always end up being selected for the jury the results should be mostly good too.

Thanks for posting this. Please update to include the gist link from @[email protected] too.

https://gist.github.com/christianselig/449b0bd374167ff7335fab2b823120ef

I would like to use star.vote, if at all possible, but I understand it would be harder to control who is eligible to vote on an external site.

It'll be interesting to see how the current plan works and what refinements are made.

I like some of those suggestions. However, I don't think down voting or abstaining should be supported. You either support an option by up voting or you take no action.

Approval voting systems have well studied behaviors and we should not deviate from that without a compelling reason.

Every approval / upvote is a distinct user endorsement for an option. The option with the most users endorsing it should be selected when that number exceeds 51% of the active users set we decide on.

Before de-federation we should talk to the admin/mods and also ban the accounts causing the problem.

I don't think de-federation should be used to clean up the "all" feed, that is not at all appropriate or useful.

The community is at a different level than instances or federation. For example, the rules a community agrees on aren't typically related to your instance or handled by the instance moderation team / admin.

Every instance will have some kind of terms of use that you must follow to keep an account on that instance.

A local community specifically for the bureaucracy of the local instance is also a special case.

In general, posting / replying in communities should be encouraged no matter which instance the community or your account was created on.

However, if you are breaking either your instance's rules or causing problems for users on another instance you can expect to be reported and likely have some moderation actions taken against your account. Basically, just having an external account isn't a license to behave badly.

Why would my way of counting the approval ratio rather than approval-only be of any disadvantage?

That's just how voting systems work. Even seemingly insignificant changes to the algorithm can have outsized impacts on how well it performs.

Plurality versus Approval is a specific example of this. Just changing "choose one" to "choose as many as you approve of" significantly impacts the amount of data that's captured and often the outcome because of the effects on voters' behaviors.

I liked the suggestion of more information. When we have it all figured out those details should be included as you suggested.

If you like pictures, there is a visualization of the RCV/IRV flaws.

https://fosstodon.org/users/tcely/statuses/110291193062264304

Why are you trying to view everything and ban things you don't like instead of viewing your subscriptions and only joining communities you do like?

Nay

If we don't care about everyone having a chance to vote, then let's just pick 25 users that have been active in the last week, at random and pass things 14 of them support.

Ugh. That was satire, not a playbook.

I posted a link for this. The custom tabs documentation is at: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/

https://sh.itjust.works/post/354507