WrittenInRed [any]
On the default lemmy ui at least, it looks like icons tend to be either ~20x20 when they’re the small circle in the actual post, and 120x120 when they’re in the community view as the 2 main sizes, and 24x24 also shows up in the community list section. Figured I’d mention some sizes in case it helps anyone designing an icon!
Pretty much no one thought he’d be better, more like not worse in a meaningful way. Obviously saying the US is going to turn Gaza into a resort is worse than not saying that, but that distinction is pretty unimportant to everyone who would be killed or driven out under a democratic president anyway. The end goal has always been to fully settle Palestine, what exact form that takes or whether the US funds it with a smile or a frown doesn’t change that.
I’m all for this, obviously the housing crisis is caused by a bunch of factors but really no one should own a second home until everyone has a first. Providing more free/affordable (and actually high quality) housing is also important, but preventing people who don’t actually live somewhere from buying a house that will sit empty or be rented out to tourists for a majority of the year is a good thing and seems like a great starting point to try and tackle the airbnb problem specifically.
Yeah those are basically my thoughts too lol. Even if it ends up not working out the process of trying it will still be good since it’ll give me more experience. Those aspects you’re wary of are also definitely my 2 biggest concerns too. I think (or at least hope) that with the rules I’m thinking of for how trust is generated it would mostly positively effect behaviour? I’m imagining by “rewarding” trust to recieving positive replies, combined with a small reward for making positive replies in the first place, it would mostly just lead to more positive interactions overall. And I don’t think I’d ever want a system like this to punish making a negative reply, only maybe when getting negative replies in response, since hopefully that prevents people wanting to avoid confrontation of harmful content in order to avoid being punished. Honestly it might even be better to only ever reward trust and never retract it except via decay over time, but that’s something worth testing I imagine.
And in terms of gaming the system I do think that’s kinda my bigger concern tbh. I feel like the most likely negative outcome is something like bots/bad actors finding a way to scam it, or the community turning into an echo chamber where ideas (that aren’t harmful) get pushed out, or ends up drifting towards the center and becoming less safe for marginalized people. I do feel like thats part of the reason 196 would be a pretty good community to use a system like this though, since there’s already a very strong foundation of super cool people that could be made the initial trusted group, and then it would hopefully lead to a better result.
There are examples of similar sorts of systems that exist, but it’s mostly various cryptocurrencies or other P2P systems that use the trust for just verifying that the peers aren’t malicious and it’s never really been tested for moderation afaik (I could have missed an example of it online, but I’m fairly confident in saying this). I think stuff like the Fediverse and other decentralized or even straight up P2P networks are a good place for this sort of thing to work though, as a lot of the culture is already conducive to decentralization of previously centralized systems, and the communities tend to be smaller which helps it feel more personal and prevents as many bad actors/botting attempts since there aren’t a ton of incentives and they become easier to recognize.
Are you trying to remove it from a photo or a video? For me at least it seems like it shows up on images but not videos.
I posted this in another thread but I also wanted to say it here so it’s more likely one of you will see it. I get the intention behind this, and I think it’s well intentioned, but it’s also definitely the wrong way to go about things. By lumping opposing viewpoints and misinformation together, all you end up doing is implying that having a difference in opinion on something more subjective is tantamount to spreading a proven lie, and lending credence to misinformation. A common tactic used to try and spread the influence of hate or misinformation is to present it as a “different opinion” and ask people to debate it. Doing so leads to others coming across the misinfo seeing responses that discuss it, and even if most of those are attempting to argue against it, it makes it seem like something that is a debatable opinion instead of an objective falsehood. Someone posting links to sources that show how being trans isn’t mental health issue for the 1000th time wont convince anyone that they’re wrong for believing so, but it will add another example of people arguing about an idea, making those without an opinion see the ideas as both equally worthy of consideration. Forcing moderators to engage in debate is the exact scenario people who post this sort of disguised hate would love.
Even if the person posting it genuinely believes the statement to be true, there are studies that show presenting someone with sources that refute something they hold as fact doesn’t get them to change their mind.
If the thread in question is actually subjective, then preventing moderators from removing just because they disagree is great. The goal of preventing overmodedation of dissenting opinions is extremely important. You cannot do so by equating them with blatent lies and hate though, as that will run counter to both goals this policy has in mind. Blurring the line between them like this will just make misinformation harder to spot, and disagreements easier to mistake as falsehoods.
I definitely agree with being against states/state oppression. I think the main problem is just that someone doesn’t actually need to self identify as a tankie to feel excluded by the word. If someone gets a bunch of angry comments on .world calling them a tankie when they definitely aren’t, then even if this community/instance is trying to use it in a different, more accurate way it still has the possibility that they would feel unwelcome here. When the prevailing way tankie gets used by the rest of Lemmy is incorrect, then that usage kinda becomes the first thing people will associate it with when they see the term somewhere else on Lemmy.
I think for official rules tankie is vague enough that it’s better to just be explicit in what is actually against the rules like what’s already there with the “no genocide denial” and “no authoritarianism” lines. Adding “no tankies” on top of that just leads to a less clear definition of what sort of behavior is actually against the rules imo. Since everyone has different ideas of what someone being a tankie means it’s not always just the authoritarian aspects that get lumped into the definition but sometimes the leftist aspects too.
Obviously none of this is to say that authoritarianism, genocide apologia, or anything like that should be allowed. I’d just personally like the rules being more clear about that explicitly instead of muddying stuff unnecessarily by using tankie.
Like I said, coming out and saying he supports the forced removal of Palestinians is awful, and neither Biden or Harris would have done that obviously. It seems pretty obvious neither of them are actually happy with Israel. But whether the US president is happy about it or not, lsraels end goal is and always has been ethnic cleansing either way. So while it is worse to express support for that goal than to express disapproval, as long as the US keeps up the supply of weapons - which we will almost assuredly do no matter what, Trump or otherwise - then to all the people being ethnically cleansed it doesn’t mean anything. The Biden administration has been expressing support for this since at least 2023, via its actions rather than words. That’s what people mean by Trump not being meaningfully worse for Palestine. Not that he isn’t worse than Biden or Harris, but that the ways in which he is worse on this specific issue don’t matter to the people who are actively the targets of the genocide. If you’re being bombed by US funded weapons then who gives a shit what the person approving those weapons says about it, they sent them either way.
Holy shit this is such a bad policy lol. World is known for being too aggressive at deleting a lot of content they really shouldn’t be deleting, but this policy really doesn’t seem like it will improve that. The issue is most of the time if they want something removed they do so and then add a policy after to justify it, meaning that regardless of this rule people can’t “advocate for violence”, but they will be able to post misinformation and hate speech since apparently “LGBTQ people are mentally ill” hasn’t been debunked enough elsewhere and a random comment chain in Lemmy is where it needs to be done. Never mind the actual harm those sorts of statements cause to individuals and the community at large.
All I can see this doing is any actual types of that get wrongly overly censored will still do so since the world admins believe they are justified in doing so, while other provably false information will be required to stay up since the admins believe the mods aren’t justified in removing it.
This policy seems to only apply to actual misinformation too, not just subjective debates. So if there’s a comment thread about whether violence is justified in protest would likely have one side removed, while I guess someone arguing that every trans person is a pedophile would be forced to stay up and be debated. Its like the exact opposite of how moderation should work lol.