significant white space to it’s classist and racist

Significant white-space is bullshit and i will die on this hill.

It was but a mere example

Fair enough.

It could help, but it’s not a problem that any one solution is the solution. There’s going to be some combination of solutions to actually solve it.

Also reasonable

Not really, I might have a lot of accounts, but it’s still only 1 per instance so it’s not really inflating the numbers. Besides most go by monthly active users for gauging the Threadiverse health which because of my pattern I might not even make up 1 MAU lol

Reasonable again.

I don’t just make them, I do my best to actively contribute to them, like I said I also post “organically sourced” content and not just crossposts for this very reason.

I missed that, if that’s whats happening i retract my implication.

Um I’m not sure how that would be a user education error? I’m talking about someone maliciously making an imposter account and posting heinous crap “in their name” But there is currently no technical solution on the Threadiverse afaik for it

I think imposter account is a misnomer, two accounts with the same name on different instances are distinct entities afaik,

like mike@gmail.com isn’t the same as mike@outlook.com.

if you look at a post and it’s written by “mike” and you don’t look at the instance it’s from you’re only getting half of the information you need.

Solutions for this type of problem exist already (PGP keys etc), they just aren’t very practical for regular people.

The “could be better solved in a different manner.” part was mostly about how the underlying software for the instances might be changed to allow for some of these existing solutions to be integrated more seamlessly.

Or something entirely new, who knows.

Nah crossposts are a solution for a different problem, 4 is for when an instance hasn’t federated with another instances remote comm yet and is therefore unknown to the instance

For example, I made this post to my comm at !gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe today from this toast.ooo instance I’m on rn

But toast.ooo never federated with that comm so as far as this instance knew !gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe didn’t exist until I manually went to the comm by URL (toast.ooo/c/gunnerkrigg@lemmy.cafe) and subbed to it

Until then nobody on this instance would have been seeing posts from that comm in their c/all/new/whatever feed, even if a post went “viral”. But now they will and for every other comm I sub to as I go

I didn’t know this is how it worked, makes sense in that context.

I’m not sure catering to the opinions of random redditors is a useful approach, but that aside.

The Lemmy network and the Threadiverse at large being associated as just a Tankie hangout

Which would be solved by creating an instance (or building up an existing instance) that isn’t the triad.

In this case Rimu (PieFed dev) and others were quick to jump in and steer, so hopefully this whole boycotting/cross-posting campaign at the very least gives them more fuel when these comments come up on the outside something like “Tankies are there, but they don’t have any important comms so you can just block those 3 instances or join [x] instance which blocks them for you”

Which would also be solved with the same solution.

From your list:

1. Promoting smaller instances, because of the volume of my posting it helps makes smaller instances more recognizable
2. Making comms on fitting smaller instances (e.g. a programming comm id make on programming.dev)
3. Mitigating against the imposter problem
4. Better interconnecting smaller instances

1 sounds like artificially inflating the numbers

2 isn’t that useful IMO because without the actual content / ongoing engagement you just end up with multiple ghost communities.

3 i think the imposter problem is a user education error and/or could be better solved in a different manner.

4 this is what cross-posting is for right (though I’ll admit that experience is lacklustre right now)? You don’t need a whole account to cross-post between communities.

Artificially inflating the numbers might look like it helps in the short term, but is bringing someone here under false pretences a workable solution, or even a solution you want ?

Injecting activity into non-.ml comms and growing them beyond the .ml version is probably the next best thing to wide defederation.

This makes sense.

Kinda, it helps dilute the waters further, but doesn’t really solve the root issue

It’s probably something obvious i’m missing, but what is the root problem ?

Again, i could be wrong here, but it sounds like you’re expecting a group of people who have shown no interest in moving on any of their positions to change their minds because you are drawing attention to content and behaviour…that they don’t deem to be an issue in the first place.

That sounds like screaming into the void to me, but as i said, i really don’t understand the nuances at play.

Isn’t the system expected response to such irreconcilable disagreements to start your own instance (with optional hookers and blackjack), enforce your own rules and regulations there and let people decide which they prefer (if any)?

The multiple accounts aren’t for avoiding bans and no account of mine is currently banned (except for the ones I don’t control (had a bit of an imposter problem last year)) they’re really just for those 4 reasons listed.

Makes sense.

genuine question.

I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don’t agree with.

If you don’t agree with the administration of an instance then don’t use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).

Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that’s how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.

More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn’t align with your values.

To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.

Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.

I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.

Probably not one that stands up to scrutiny.

If they have fixed programming, the bias would be consistent, but still there, because it would be based upon systems that are already inherently bias.

Any current ML system is beholden to the data/constraints it was built with, if inherent bias exists in the data it will exist in the resulting system.

That’s before you even start taking in to account the infrastructure that would be managing them being potentially corrupt or having their own interpretations of “public safety”.

“These bots from <generic third party> are bringing in more cases against the <“good” people>, but these ones from <tech company with the same bigoted ideology as us> can be tweaked to target the <“bad” people>, which of these two companies should we purchase our inventory from ?”