You are allowed to discuss piracy. You aren’t allowed to facilitate piracy (I.e. providing links to pirated content). It is illegal in the country where this instance is hosted.

Like I said - there is a small vocal group who few that Lemmy as a whole should be boycotted due to the developers’ political views.

Why would a Kbin user want to speak to you, a Lemmy user?

Some people are excessively sensitive to software developer political views.

Lemmy isn’t Kbin and Kbin isn’t Lemmy. Both are software participants in the fediverse. It is like saying nginx isn’t Apache: of course isn’t, but that doesn’t make them any less web servers.

If the mods can agree on policy, there is absolutely no reason to have two communities. Shut one down and use the other.

Edit: can someone explain to me what the difference between synchronizing two communities and subscribing to a federated community is? I mean, that’s exactly the point of federation.

No, and the difference between Beehw and Lemmy.world is why. Different people have different views about moderation and what is acceptable content.

There are two solutions to the real problem of duplicate content:

1. Multireddit - like functionality for grouping similar content.
2. Making crossposting a reference to the original post, not a copy. Mods would need to be able to block crossposts from specific communities, and remove crossposts to their sub.

Bots that don’t identify as such count towards active users. There have been a number of bot purges.

Huh, don’t know what that was about. Edited.

Somebody might be getting a nasty AWS bill at the end of the month.

Pro-tip: if you are trying to figure out if a website has a feature, try the default web interface first.

Federation is the future of social media for exactly this reason, especially in the twitter-like realm where who is saying it is as (or more) important than what is being said. These people and organizations need to control their brand outside the scope of commercial pressure from the platform.

Not in All. The traffic in all is proportional to the number of subscribed communities of an instance, which is roughly proportional to the number of users.

Users concentrating on large servers benefits all the servers where content lives by reducing the number of connections they have to make to update data. Large user servers also act as a cache for the content, reducing storage duplication. Finally, large user servers improve the UX for the Fediverse’s biggest weakness: figuring out how to get your instance to talk to a community on another instance.

Meanwhile, the current situation is helping the developers refactor the software to scale to actual large user bases - the tens of thousands of users on Lemmy.world do not constitute a “large” user base by any internet-scale metric. It also concentrates the DDOS jerks on a target with the skills and resources to fight back. Finally, small servers going offline are a substantial burden on the instances that remain.

Big, robust, secure instances for users, smaller distributed instances with limited direct access for communities. That’s the real practical architecture for Lemmy.

I can’t claim to know what the designers intended, but having users spread across a large numbers of servers is terribly inefficient for how Lemmy works: each server maintains a copy of each community that it’s users are subscribed to, and changes to those communities need to be communicated across each of those instances.

Given this architecture, it is much more efficient and robust to have users concentrate on what are effectively high performance cacheing servers, and communities spread out on smaller, interest focused instances.

That’s pretty much my thinking, though there is an advantage that having a large number of users on an instance amplifies it’s caching effect, though as you say - if their interests are too far spread, that effect is diminished.

Not harmful, but I would agree that the network seems optimized for a small number of user-focused servers, and a large number of community-focused servers.

No, because the model for ActivityPub is very different than how OAuth is used for authentication. What you describe is like wanting to log in to hotmail using your gmail account, and being able to send and receive e-mail from your gmail address.

It is a fundamental to ActivityPub that a user exists at a domain, and content coming from or going to that domain is sent from / to the relevant server at that domain.

Federated login is a good idea, and it’s been done, both in closed and open forms. Combining federated login and federated ID over ActivityPub would fundamentally change ActivityPub.

I’m just going to say… “All” isn’t your feed. It is everything people on your instance have subscribed to. So, what you are saying is that the other people on the instance are subscribed to too much NSFW content. I’m not sure that individuals should get to police that.

“Subscribed” is your feed. Include or exclude whatever content you wish. You can blur NSFW if you want to browse all without seeing anything you don’t like.

Interesting - TIL. I wonder how Lemmy resolves the post #, since it is different between instances, and if it re-syncs comments when you do that. The post # thing is annoying, btw, because it makes it impossible to use relative links in posts/comments.

A better analogy is how Lemmy and Mastodon are theoretically compatible. Yeah, you can get federated content, but it really isn’t usable.

Kbin is just a different implementation of Lemmy, intended to be compatible (not coincidentally compatible through the protocol).