The Fediverse is a specific thing. And even if it were just referring to any federated social network, it’s very questionable whether Bluesky really can have independent instances.

Because this is not c/maybefederatedsocialnetworks, it’s c/fediverse, which is a specific thing.

That just a function of it being a long-term and established community. And likely a bit of agreement with your broad cultural and political views. Right now Reddit is more likely to have information on a random video game than Lemmy, but that doesn’t mean their structure is inherently good for producing information.

A federated system where you federate with everyone without limit is a good way to get a lot of bad shit, but that’s not how the Fediverse actually works. Instances defederate from other instances that are dragging down the quality of their social network. Most importantly, if your admins go bad and decide they want to not pursue truth but instead craft a narrative, you can move instances to one that has the standards you want while only losing the content that was actually on the now-bad instance.

Read on to literally the next paragraph, which says Diaspora is the only still developed platform that matches the original definition and does not use ActivityPub, or to the section that explicitly calls ATProto a Fediverse alternative.

The first paragraph is descriptive of the Fediverse, not a test for whether something is part of it. The Internet is a collection of computers communicating via TCP/IP. That doesn’t mean any two computers communicating over TCP/IP are now part of the Internet.

That’s present in any user editable platform. Wikipedia’s consensus doesn’t mean it’s actually representing broad universal truth. That why everything gets cited and the talk and history pages are public to the readers, so they can judge the reliability themselves. If you stumble on a less visited page, that consensus group gets smaller and smaller and the likelihood of it being essentially a pretty fiefdom increases.

Even printed encyclopedias had no such claim. If someone is putting out a instance that’s too highly biased to be useful, defederate.

Neither this community’s sidebar nor Wikipedia agree with your definition.

ATProto is not the Fediverse. Is there something in this blog you think should be discussed in the context of the Fediverse?

It depends on if the shortfall in rent is coming from something server related. If stux is pulling a good salary for his hosting work and the shortfall just came from a different job falling through, that’s a fine time to ask for donations, but not something people would feel warrants shutting down the server rather than taking out a loan.

I’m fine having the burden spread unevenly. I don’t mind donating more so that a free platform is available to anyone who wants to use it. Whether something is funded by donations or fees is separate from whether the cost of people’s time should be included in the revenue target.

I assume he’s applying donations to the server costs first, then considers extra as profit/salary. We should be considering developer time as a core part of server costs, but I think people would react poorly if server donations went to personal expenses before server expenses.

I think one of the best thing hosts could do is be transparent about costs and how much time maintenance takes and what sort of effective wage they are getting.

“Public benefit corporation” is a meaningless designation. All it means is they have the option of putting their mission over their shareholders, not that they are obligated to do so.

Diversity of thought is very important

So she’s going to appoint a Democratic Socialist? No? Someone from Sunrise then? No? A Palestinian-American Democrat? They couldn’t even get 2 minutes at the convention. How about a BLM activist? She marched for that cause, surely that’s some diversity she’d want to have represented. Not that either? Hm.

Maybe this isn’t about diversity of thought and instead about the doomed Democratic instinct to try to coopt the center-right, which according to the theory of centrism will make them win forever! Just not any of the times they’ve already tried it.

The Democratic governor of PA eulogized the murdered audience member waxing about how happy he was to be at a Trump rally and died as a hero for covering his family. I’m not saying he should diss a murdered man, just don’t act like a Trump rally is some great All-American event.

“It’s a tragic attack and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims. Political violence is abhorrent. We are providing all necessary support to uncover how this came about.” That’s all you need to do. Instead Democrats are out there mythologizing the event for Trump.

There’s nothing that would appear in a news story about the poll that isn’t in their own release. Their releases are actually usually more informative because they run through multiple results from the poll, not just whatever the headline point is.

The results of a poll are news and usually as factual as you can get. Their poll might be an outlier or they might have a polling bias, but unless you think they’re drawing conclusions unsupported by the poll or think their methodology is wrong, there’s not much to criticize.

Morning Consult is a well known polling company. If you’ve followed polls and aren’t familiar with them I’m amazed. They do some sort of online polling which makes them cheap and fast, but there’s nothing suspicious about them and they haven’t shown any bias I’ve recognized. It’s not a questionable source, but is just one poll so it might not be accurate.

They’ll say they’re too young and too left. Or throw 5 other things at the wall and see what gets traction. Conservative attacks have never attempted to be consistent.

Politics isn’t a left-right line where you win by being the closest to the center. A more center candidate than Biden, if such a thing even exists, would then further depress base turn out, which is already in a big flashing danger area. And the undecideds aren’t centrists, seeking maximum center, they’re some mixture of uninterested in politics and a grab bag of policy preferences that don’t fit neatly into either side.

Biden steps aside and literally anyone else becomes the third option. Like, do they automatically win? No, but it’s a third option. This whole debate is about the third option, and those pathways are being talked about by Democratic elected officials, not randos on message boards. It’s a real option, so calling that a false dilemma is entirely correct.

Nah, not a chance. She hasn’t been mentioned in anything, feels old when we want someone who isn’t, and is a proven failure. Some diehards can say it’s “not her fault”, but we’re all traumatized due to her failure. Same way some people still post Notorious RGB style memes, but they just cause discomfort among the rank and file that now associate her with stubbornness resulting in massive Democratic backslide. Normies don’t hate her, but they rightfully recognize that she’s problematic and power brokers know when someone’s dead-on-arrival. There are plenty of corporate Democrats that haven’t been publicly tarnished for them to invest in.

I feel like being an inspiring charismatic leader is kind of incompatible with the gauntlet that would get someone pre-approved as a party-selected candidate. I’m having a hard time thinking of an establishment-favored figure who’s really charismatic. Buttigieg maybe? But he was sort of out of left field and it feels like he’s been more of a tool to deploy to soften bad news stories than someone the establishment is raising up as a potential next big thing. Booker is probably the most party-supported charismatic figure, but I don’t think relentless positivity is enough to lead in times where lots of people are legitimately angry.

My theory is that Obama, for all the success he brought to the party, shook it up in ways the establishment structure really didn’t like. Since then they haven’t really been looking for the next Obama, because populism is dangerous to established power structures. That’s why the 2020 convention didn’t have a keynote speaker, it had 17 all saying a line or two from a speech, which means none of the “rising voices” actually has a chance to break out.