Yea this has really big astroturfing vibes.

The fediverse is not really about avoiding censorship as it is about providing choice. That means the choice to listen to who you want to listen to (i.e. what servers to (de)federate from/to), the choice to post whatever you want (but you might get banned from your own instance or any other instance, that’s their prerogative), the choice of administrators and moderators (i.e. which instance you sign up to and what communities you participate in).

All of that stuff doesn’t really have to do with censorship directly, but it has implications for censorship. The fediverse is not built primarily to avoid censorship though, and in some cases it is made to make “censorship” (moderation) easier, rather than harder.

Wow, a legitimate use case for shorts.

Damn moderators banning fog!!1!

Here I was thinking this was some rant about the moderators of this comm lol

What do all you guys use these setups for?

Even if you could, Linus Torvalds is not a fan of the v3 license.

Why not?

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License. However, although version 3 has been adopted by many software projects, the authors of the Linux kernel have notably declined to move from version 2 to version 3.

How come Linux doesn’t use GPL v3?

I wouldn’t say it’s truly decentralised in its current state.

Should the government collect taxes on the buoyant times but then refund them during market downturns? That would be a nightmare. No government wants to be on the hook for refunds during a downturn.

AFAIK Danish tax on stock gains/losses works like this. Stock gains are heavily taxed while stock losses give you a tax rebate.

It’s funny how it used to be expensive. In Danish we have a saying to say someone is poor if “they can’t even afford salt for their egg”, as if an egg is cheaper than salt. Because it actually used to be that way.

Tbf I do think it qualifies as title gore and at the very least it is missing a comma before “ending”

“Wikipedia concludes that Israel is committing genocide, thus ending an editorial debate”

Yea it’s cool. Although, regarding sublinks, it really looks like the project has stalled.

It doesn’t really help for me, but the beauty of the fediverse is that it doesn’t have to. You can like PieFed, I can prefer Lemmy and we can both still talk :)

On the other hand, it has some weirdly opinionated features:

• Hiding downvoted comments (mob rule)
• Marking people with many downvotes as “low reputation”. I get it, getting many downvotes is a bad sign but I don’t think the software should try to make a ruling here, I think human moderators should look at the whole picture. It doesn’t make you a bad person that people disagree with you.
• Communities organized into “topics” - I’m not certain if these groupings are decided by the dev or the admin? Either way I find it a bit problematic.
• Marking certain communities as “low effort” and not counting “reputation” for those. I don’t feel like the software should be making this kind of value judgement.

It creates circles of like-minded people where it is really easy to reject “other” thoughts and accept “our” ideas without much questioning.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but there is an argument to be made that we should actually go back to smaller, more secluded forums on the internet that are less connected with outside views.

Hmm okay. I do think we have something similar here where there might be meetings that we call “citizen meetings” where anyone is invited to come and hear about a current political topic. It’s mostly informative and people can ask questions and stuff, not related to campaigning or elections mostly I would say. So yea I don’t think that is too weird honestly.

That just makes me think, how can those people not voting just sit idly by and watch? I don’t understand that either.

I’m not sure about the format but I know that towns in Denmark also occasionally calls for meetings. This doesn’t sound that weird to me