‘Collectivizing power from the wealthy’ also known as… democracy? Is the anti-communist just saying the quiet part out loud here?
‘Collectivizing power from the wealthy’ also known as… democracy? Is the anti-communist just saying the quiet part out loud here?
So I’m guessing it’s a combination of dun/den/tun etc being a common suffix in a lot of historical languages, and ‘ei’ being an extremely common diphthong worldwide just… leading to a lot of similar-sounding names that also converge in spelling in modern English?
I’m sorry, but ‘crash when pressing Ctrl+C’ is a hilarious bug.
I live in the UK, but am from Norway. I know a few librarians though, and I know that community libraries are usually (or at least often) interested in projects that can connect their communities and help them with outreach. Something like this certainly could do that, and with libraries existing in most communities there is a built in network for broader proliferation there.
I’m also just very keen on the idea of libraries having a central role to play in the future of the broader fediverse ecosystem.
Edit: It may be key to pitch this to them not as a platform, but as a decentralised community network.
Loving this concept. May I make a suggestion? Show this to and discuss this with your local library. That strikes me as a good potential partner, and a model that can be replicated in most places to potentially help with everything from hosting to community resources access.
Gonna ignore all context for the purposes of answering / contributing to a discussion of a kinda valid underlying question:
There is a disconnect between moderation and membership in an ostensibly democratic social media structure. How could that gap be bridged?
The way I see it, this is basically the representation vs delegation debate, though here it is arguable whether there is even representation. From this perspective, you can draw on a couple of hundred years of theory and practice to arrive at potential structures.
For example, you could have a system where members of a community mark themselves as willing to moderate it, and all members select a willing delegate essentially their ‘moderating power’ to. Mods are then selected by number of delegations, which would be a fluid process because users can redistribute their ‘votes’ at any time. This would make mods immediately answerable to the members.
To make the system less vulnerable to hijacking you would probably need some kind of delay in there so that you wouldn’t suddenly get a mass influx of new users delegating to the same mods to take over the community, and there would likely need to be other measures in place as well. But it would certainly be a neat experiment!
(Just to note, I am not saying the current moderation model is necessarily bad, just figured it would be interesting to consider alternative approaches and have a look at what possible problems there might be in both the current model and any such alternatives.)
The technical challenges are vast, is the long and short of it. But it’s high time there’s a good discussion over how it should (or might) work, at least the kinds of properties such a system should have.
There are several issues involved here, beyond just ‘mere’ technology, that need addressing. Personally I think a good start might be to engage with public libraries here. They already keep simple identity records (library cards) and have public service purpose well-aligned with the concepts of the federation and public distribution of information and knowledge.
The purpose and function of the police and the courts is the protection of capital from the people. Some cases illustrate this more clearly than others. This is one of them.
I’m from Vesterålen in Northern Norway and this is giving me huge home vibes.