jon

But there are things that would constitute NSFW that aren't porn and also not NSFL. I think a way to designate porn makes the most sense so you know whether you're clicking on a video of a bad car wreck or a video of a woman being raw dogged from behind.

They're choosing between a man who literally tried to overthrow democracy, a man too focused on drag queens and bathrooms, or a democrat. Politics is a team sport for these people. It's not about electing the best candidate, it's about beating the Democrats.

I think that people need to get this idea of "winning" out of their head. We need to try and cultivate the userbase we want rather than focus on "beating" Threads/Reddit/Twitter/etc.

Don't focus of numbers, focus on good content.

Several years ago for April Fools Day, Reddit launched /r/place, which created a canvas where users could place individual pixels every few minutes. Communities would get together to carve out their own little corner of the canvas for a piece of art, and overall the whole thing was pretty well received.

Last year for April Fools Day, they did it again. Overall, once again pretty well received.

Now, since Reddit has pissed everyone off, they're doing it again again, likely in a desperate move to try and generate some positive community interactions. /r/place has always been pretty popular when they've done it before, so this is probably a 'push in case of emergency' attempt to placate users. Predictably, everyone's still mad so they've littered the whole canvas with 'fuck spez' posts.

You let the foxes into the hen house, then get upset that you're out of hens?

Oooor....

Start a new cover band led entirely by children called the antlets and put the magazine to good use.

I think something like this is necessary at some point, since duplicate posts across duplicate communities is an inconvenience when compared to more centralized communities in Reddit. Some thoughts:

When you go to the comments, which instance's comments are we seeing? If we make a comment, which instance is our comment posted to? My idea would be to throw everyone's comments into a singular bucket as you said, but then you'll have to select which instance you're posting to when commenting. This does introduce an issue with moderation though, as different communities may have different rules. So there may need to be a moderation option on whether you'll allow post collation across other communities.

Aside from grouping duplicate posts like this, we could also group different communities. If we have a kbin.social/m/technology and lemmy.world/c/technology, we could just combine the posts from both communities into one group. This could be done automatically for communities with the same name, but a better option may be for moderators to add "sister communities" whose posts will appear in the magazine. That way, from the user's perspective, there is just one technology magazine that assembles content from multiple instances.

Here's an oldy. J. Bruce Ismay.

J. Bruce Ismay was chairman of the White Star Line and passenger aboard the Titanic on the night it sank. He's been given a lot of shit throughout history for cheaping out on safety features of the ship, such as not carrying enough lifeboats, using cheap parts and manufacturing that contributed to the sinking, and insisting the ship move at full speed through ice fields to break records. He also took a seat on a lifeboat, saving himself at the cost of another passenger.

Except it's all bullshit.

Titanic did not cheap out on parts. It was a top of the line ship with industry leading safety features. There is no evidence that Ismay was pushing the ship to break any records. It wasn't even a ship built for speed, focusing more on oppulance and luxury. While Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats, it did carry more than it was legally required to. It wouldn't have mattered anyway, as they didn't have enough time to launch the lifeboats they had. And Ismay didn't "steal" a lifeboat spot. Most early lifeboats were being launched way below capacity, as people didn't want to get on them (believing that the ship wouldn't sink, or wouldn't sink before a rescue ship would arrive to save them). Ismay took a lifeboat seat because one was available. He didn't steal it. The only thing Ismay really did wrong is not die that night as the public felt he ought to have.

There needs to be a distinction between "I did my science badly" and "I knowingly published false information". Wakefield's paper linking vaccines and autism faked its data to imply a causal relationship between the two for the purposes of financial gain. You should absolutely be able to sue that guy if his paper damaged you in any way. Fuck 'em.

On the other hand, if you publish a study in earnest, but that study is full of mistakes and comes to an incorrect conclusion, you should not be able to be sued. If the study is bad, it would be easy enough to publish a response pointing out flaws with the original study. This is especially true since so many papers are published with the caveat of "this requires future study to confirm".

In order to sue, you should be required to show some sort of malicious action behind the bad science, such as faked data.

This would be a dangerous precedent. If you disagree with scientific findings, you just conduct your own research to disprove the original study. If companies can sue researchers for publishing claims that damage them, it'll just result in researchers withholding studies in fear a multibillion dollar corporation coming after them. Scientists need to be able to publish their research without fear of retribution.

The only exception I would accept is if someone published knowingly false research, a la Andrew Wakefield.

Exactly. If you're gonna cite religious exemptions, you should at the very least be required to point to the exact god damned verse.

Oh look, it's the fugitive slave act again.