Kinda what I meant by plastics

I’m more worried about the plastic, pesticides, degraded pharmaceuticals and heavy metals myself

So I just learned this recently, but apparently after the whole Victorian “smash and grab” thing where Britain stole all the art that was or wasn’t nailed down (there’s a lot of feet and footless statues lol), archeologists went to sites and realized how much knowledge was destroyed by their predecessors who only cared about impressive finds they could show off

Technology and techniques are always improving, so now when they find an archeological site, they excavate only a fraction, leaving the rest for future generations who will have better tools.

Obviously, non-destructive methods are still on the table, but I found that pretty interesting

Plus, the bones are good - it doesn’t do everything, but what it does it does surprisingly efficiently and robustly. And there’s the rest of the fediverse for most of it - Lemmy doesn’t need to handle messages, there’s matrix for that (there’s even a matrix ID on the user definitions)

There’s definitely more to be done, like user migration and modtools, but a lot of the shortcomings are in the client. And now that it caught so much attention, you’re going to see a lot of apps and different web interfaces very soon

It’s kind of incredible what you can do on the client side too since there’s no company trying to keep you reliant on them. I’m building an app, and while I’m prioritizing getting it out ASAP, I’m looking through the data and imagining what I can build on top of it. Especially when the rest of the fediverse is taken into account.

It’s like a new Internet built on top of the one stolen from us

No, I think it kind of goes against what we’re trying to do here - if a list like that became popular, it would supercharge the growth of certain communities

There’s a lot of people pushing for that because it would make the site a straight Reddit replacement, but the promise here is a lot like the original promise of Reddit - give users a single place they can go to access a bunch of small forums

If someone makes a community for that purpose or a community wants to draw in all the Reddit refugees, I have no problem with that, but I think the growth would be healthier if people find them organically rather than putting a centralized list somewhere

Sites will start to pull in a community if any of the members on that instance sub to it and there’s talk of adding the ability for communities to band together in multis

It’s like when you let kids vote on what to do for the school faire.

Not only will the teacher and school change the result if they don’t like the winning suggestion, you also can’t vote to do nothing or protest the event

It’s just a way to give you the illusion of autonomy to boost engagement. It’s only a choice between the decisions they find (more or less) equally acceptable

Well, if you start one I’d join.

I’ve been looking for the next thing for more than a year, because the things that made Reddit a (relatively) healthier form of social media were being eroded. I tried out tildes, and the community was much more friendly, but almost too friendly. It was like they were overcompensating out of fear of the community becoming toxic… It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t comfortable - it felt like meeting strangers who you really want to impress. They’re also somewhat anti-growth, which isn’t a bad idea, but they were well below the sweet spot

Plus, I never loved the old school Reddit visuals, and it’s design principle is html only and had no app or dark mode… All in all it’s a great place for a specific group of redditors that didn’t include me

Then I made up my resolution to leave Reddit when my apps go down and started looking at making a custom app to collate RSS feeds, and I started hearing about Lemmy.

I liked it enough that I’ve dropped everything and started building a better app. There’s a lot missing, but there’s so much good energy.

And the design principles of the fediverse address many of the fundimental problems with social media and the Internet as a whole. This might really be something important

Because humans are barely sapient animals with limited understanding of ourselves and little to no awareness of the long-term consequences of our actions.

We don’t operate in our own best interest or the best interest of the group, we’re built on the assumption that the environment and our local community will moderate our actions. There’s natural limits to physical actions, natural repercussions to social ones when everyone knows each other

Technology doesn’t have these limits. Things made of code can scale past human comprehension in seconds. And it changes it’s users

Part of the ethics of software development is to carefully consider the ramifications of what you bring into the world.

The public can’t make an informed choice, because they lack both the nuanced understanding of the tech, and every choice has a cognitive load. It’s up to you to make it safe and healthy or to inform them of the consequences, and you can’t just put up a 26 research papers on the psychological and solciological considerations for hitting a button… No one is going to read that.

You also can’t have booby traps - anything a user can do inadvertently or accidentally shouldn’t have serious consequences.

There’s some room for debate, but it all comes down to this: you’re responsible for how an average user is going to use your technology. You should do all you can to make it easy to use the tech safely, you should add covers over the buttons that do something with consequences, and things with deeper ramifications should only be available to power users who presumably have the technical knowledge to make an informed choice themselves.

So onto this situation. Say you make this button “sub to /c/_____ and all sister communities”. That’s not really a choice - it’s like you go to McDonald’s and order a burger, and they say “for the same price, I’ll give you 3 additional burgers with different options”. Some people would say no, but they wanted a thing and you offer them more of the thing. If they haven’t tried them before, there’s fomo - what if one of the other burgers is better? And it’s not like they couldn’t just stop eating.

The majority will accept 4 burgers, because they don’t see the hidden consequences. There’s no world where the average person sits down with 4 burgers and eats less than they would if they had 1 - it’s human nature, studied and documented… Giving someone more food leads to them eating more, because we judge the amount we’re eating in large part visually. Put it on a larger plate or pile it higher, and we underestimate how much we’ve eaten. Put it on a small plate, and we eat less.

Sure, there’s people who understand this - those of us who’ve struggled with weight or food scarcity are either not going to accept the burgers, or we’ll set 3 aside for later. There’s people who might benefit from eating 4 burgers - someone who burns 10k calories a day needs that kind of intake (even though they’d be better off with more variety).

Good or bad, you’ve increased consumption based on how you’ve presented this choice. The outcome was a statistical certainty, but technically it was a choice. It’s just a choice that every human would naturally answer the same way if they went in blind - do you want only the thing you asked for, or that plus more free stuff.

So if you make this a button, it’ll overwhelm the single sub option. And there’s a game theory aspect to this - I’d likely hit the button too, because individual choices here don’t matter, it’s a matter of speed and volume of users subbing and unsubbing

I think this was the proposal - but problem is still doing this automatically.

It’s not posts I’m worried about, it’s comments. Comments are where the discussion takes place and the culture develops

I liked GTA V, but I spent my whole time with rdr2 just being like “everyone loves this game, what am I missing? Maybe if I make it to the next act it’ll open up more”.

It was beautiful, the world felt alive, the mechanics were good, but it’s like instead of making a game with the wonderful foundation they built, they decided they’d rather tell a story than make a game.

I loved the hunting, the bounty quests were kind of ok, the gunfights were ok even if they were so repetitive they felt procedural, but I just couldn’t care about the story they shoved down your throat.

I wanted to build up the settlement and have to run around robbing trains to come up with money, I don’t want to do a 5 minute ride while the characters give exposition through dialogue, fight a few waves of enemies, then ride off - rinse and repeat.

I wanted to grind progression through upgrading weapons and gear, but the upgrades are minimal, new guns are linked to story progression, and while hunting was fun the legendaries were just tedious jumping through hoops

I like multis and I think discoveribility is a bottleneck, but I’m very wary of this idea. If you merge communities together like this, you essentially multiply the users in that community. Moderation isn’t 4 small instances anymore - it’s one large one with 4 separate mod teams each handling a quarter of the posts

I think this is more likely to lead to polarization and eventually echo chambers than if you kept them separate - outrage drives engagement more than anything else, and explosive growth is a great way for a fraction of the group to dominate the first few pages of comments, which turns off moderate voices, which works like confirmation bias to make the outraged believe they’re the prevailing voice of the community, which again drives them to post more incendiary comments, and the whole thing spirals

If you want to avoid echo chambers, the best way is to throw a small group together and make them get along through mods that are involved in the community

But then you’d probably end up with most members of one community slowly joining the rest, which is a healthier growth model, but still not great

My intuition is that the ideal solution involves encouraging users to join a single smaller group, but being exposed to top posts from sister groups to avoid fomo. Possibly through something like the way Reddit handled crossposts, where you get the post but not the comments, and a small link to the discussion in other communities. It could be automated if the post crossed a certain threshold of votes, keyed to a certain deviation above the daily average of the original group and optionally with a minimum up/down vote ratio.

This would help keep moderation ahead of participation, and hopefully build a tighter knit community - people are less willing to be jerks to people they recognize than strangers you get in a larger population. By encouraging users into one small random group instead of shopping around for the one that best fits their view, I think we could resist natural grouping by beliefs.

To go further, if this works we could consider a mechanism for “mitosis”, a splitting of a group when the mod team feels the culture of the group is getting past their ability to manage in a nuanced way

The goal is decentralization after all, not distributed centralized groups

Nah, it’s more than that. It’s a way of decentralizing power and becoming resistant to control.

It doesn’t start or end with Lemmy - you could build Remmy, join it to the network, and somehow group up these communities and present them to the users as a single group. You could build Kenny because you’re suspicious of the Lemmy devs, and help users migrate away from them (taking their content with them). You could make the server ad supported, make one for your students to speak amongst themselves semi privately, you could make one dedicated to LLMs

Hell, Reddit could decide to join the network and try to take it over, and each server owner could decide if they want to let them try or limit communication with them.

At the end of the day, you can only get so much control. Because while there are benefits to being on a specific server, ultimately anyone can spin up a new one and their users get access to a social network that includes all its members, and if instead of one animemes most users sub to 4 smaller ones, you again have less power in any one place

There’s also the moderation aspect - no matter how good your tools, mods can only manage so much. Push past a certain point, and even with large teams you’re going to get inconsistent moderation and a lot of resentment from it. But with smaller groups, mods can be closer to their members, and groups who don’t want any moderation can have it their way - they just might be blocked from a server if the admin thinks they’re going to ruin things

I mean, there’s also already instances being blacklisted from the bigger Lemmy servers - they’re not cut off from the network, but the instances don’t talk directly to each other anymore.

And while we’re very likely to see some consolidation, I think a lot of us would resist if the groups grew to rival front page subreddits.

I’d like to see science and technology go in that direction because I’ll deal with flat earthers if it means I can see all the best takes from subject matter experts (and it’s easy to tell the difference), but current events? Already I was on r/animetitties instead of the main news subs, because they have a very strong tendency towards polarization

I think you’re 100% right, but frankly this issue is more important than just a nice home for us

Social networks are being pressured to start extracting value with interest rates no longer being nil, and their efforts aren’t just inconvenient, they’re bad for mental health.

And how long until they start selling control over debate to the highest bidder? Musk has pretty explicitly gone over plans to do exactly that - he wants to charge per-user to send out tweets to your subscribers. He says there would be a large limit before you have to start paying, but this is a great way to control voices that rise out of the crowd

Social media has been a disaster, but there’s no putting it back in the box - it’s the primary way we communicate. It’s terrible for mental health and can be leveraged as a tool of control, so a decentralized system is very important right now

That being said, I think it’d be great if the fediverse encorages fragmented groups instead of a main subject monolith and refugees in fringe groups - smaller communities are just healthier and more fulfilling

So what I think you’re talking about is called deep links, and it’s certainly a challenge in this scenario

I’m pretty sure it’s solvable with some effort, I’m working on a Lemmy client now and will look into intents that could be sent from the Lemmy front end. My main concern is just recognizing the links in-app robustly as people learn how to format them - if the client doesn’t kick you into the browser, it solves half the problem and I’ll worry about the other half