appreciate your advice and willingness to participate! I agree and will do that.

Community growth can vary depending on available alternatives, discovery, and investment (whether monetary or directly with effort, like I am suggesting). Even Reddit publicly admitted that they created numerous fake accounts operated by a couple of people and created content with them to give readers the impression that the site already has users. What I am suggesting does not align with this of course, but the idea that being intentional about growing our community is a good thing in my opinion.

I agree. I personally believe that the fediverse has talented people who have the potential to create interesting content outside of technology and politics, but they feel discouraged being the only person to post in an otherwise deserted space. I believe that our concentrated effort will encourage these people to come out and contribute.

It is great to hear that communities for this purpose already exist. Do you happen to know the mods there?

I agree on letting people know on reddit and twitter. I added point #5 on that. Thank you!

You should see some of the pushback I get for daring to post popculture or feminist news.

Can you please share this with me so I can see this? I may end up running into similar challenges as you, so it would be helpful to foresee them.

The way we get more diverse topics is by gaining a more diverse user base.

I partly agree, and I think this initiative is partly aimed at making the fediverse more attractive to users who are interested in these topics that we will target.

Generally speaking, the existing members are very resistant to any topic outside of technology, politics, and gaming.

I personally have seen a lot of appetite from many users here for topics outside of these. I think the problem is that, those topics tend to be more scattered and there is less consensus. But the beauty of the fediverse, and this reddit-like format we have, is that topic-specific communities can thrive independently and we do not all have to like them.

I may end up being wrong and this ends up being a failed project, but I think it is worth trying. And I am happy and thankful that you are interested despite your skepticism!

I agree, and I specifically aim not to make this growth for the sake of growth. It’s an effort to increase diversity of content on the fediverse, and quality of communities outside of technology and politics. And we will only pick topics and communities that existing members are interested in improving.

Why would it get deleted? You mean by mods?

I think your client could theoretically back up all your posts locally. Should be easy to develop a client that does that. But it’s better to get in the habit to store your writings locally anyways. In a notes app or something.

deleted by creator

Can you give examples ? That’s partly why I ask this question.

I think having instances or communities dedicated to that would be wonderful.

I think having separate identity providers would work well with this. Those identity providers could optionally verify age and location, and your instance can just trust them on that to make it exclusive to certain ages or locations.

You can only filter and sort what was downloaded by the client. So that runs into resource constraints.

There shouldn’t be resource constraint issues in downloading new content Metadata from all your subscriptions

tags

When I say “standardize tags on all content”, what I mean is make it a standard to have the option of having tags on every type of content, and treat tags as a first class attribute of the content. The XKCD you reference is not relevant.

That’s more the ATproto/Bluesky vision.

Sure, they use it. But it is compatible with activityPub as well.

I’m so far paging, and it’s so annoying this isn’t the default design on the fediverse.

On 4, I also agree, but what’s the best alternative?

I think instance owners should retain the ability to make some blocks non-negotiable. They are responsible for the instance and legal implications after all.

I do like this, but it does require responsibility from the user to maintain their keys. I think having it as an option is great, alongside the identity providers I speak about.

That’s precisely why I call it necessary, you’re right!

Thank you for listening to my idea, and I’m glad you like it :)

The first issue you bring up would be resolved with the idea of separating identity and authentication as separate providers from instance providers. In fact, it’s much better than just relying on a small difficulty, as that is more likely to discourage a well meaning non-technical person than a malicious actor.

Wktn separate identity providers, your instance can trust the identity providers that have good reputation. And if I want to be seen by your instance, then I have to have one of those identity providers approve me.

Different identity providers will have different standards and requirements.

The downside is that if you’re new to the fediverse, you have no way of knowing whose lists you should follow.

Isn’t the whole idea that you choose a trans-friendly instance and you naturally adopt the instance wide blocklist? Same thing here, except you choose the block list similar to choosing an instance in the old flow.

And if you disagree, this could still easily be mediated. For example, the instance could have a default block list. As long as one can opt out, that would respect user choice.

Or choosing the blocklists can be part of the account creation flow.

There’s others ways to go about it.

Beyond that though, on an instance like blahaj, it would be largely irrelevant, because there is no scenario where I let transphobes federate to the instance

What I suggest isn’t meant to take away the instance owner ability to defederate or moderate. But this makes it such that you don’t have to modify your moderation strategy when your users can adopt different moderation in addition to what you have. (example: maybe a large group of your users want to block US-centric content, or political content, etc.) and people not on your instance could possibly adopt your moderation as well!

An easy middle ground is the ability to sync your block list with someone else. This gives the same capability you desire, but allows users freedom to do it on their own. Everyone’s happy! What do you think?

I agree with this. I think instance owners retaining ability to block other instances is still unfortunately necessary, if at least for administrative and legal reasons. But putting the onus on granular blocking controls on the user is a big achievement, as I prefer the user to retain that control.