This is where the benefit of having more than one account on different instances comes in. When admins make a move users don’t like, users can just log into a different instance to access the content they want to see.

Honestly though, not very good optics on doing this without any prior communication. You are going to do whatever you want on your instance, but as IIRC the biggest Lemmy instance, its a really bad look to be making changes without saying anything. It makes me (and likely others) wonder if you hadn’t been called out on it by some users posting about it if there would even have been an announcement like this at all. Granted, there is no legal obligation for transparency, but many users here greatly appreciate the transparency in the past that was done prior to taking action for the most part.

Side note: Going to go out on a limb here and assume the content takedown request was Nintendo related, and the takedown request was probably filed by someone who does not actually represent Nintendo. This happens so often that it is basically my default assumption. This may or may not be the case here, but its hard to imagine that there would be anyone else with their eyes on such a tiny community as Lemmy, especially in comparison to Reddit.

In theory, reporting to the community moderators should be enough for users. It would then be the responsibility of thost moderators to report it to the instance admin, and then the admins responsibility to report it to the instance’s local law enforcement. They will then handle it appropriately.

However, sometimes community moderators are corrupt and will ignore reports and even ban users for reporting instance rule breaking content. In those cases, the user must report directly to the instance admin. As you can imagine, instance admins also can be corrupt and therefore the user must report to law enforcement.

But typically the first scenario is sufficient.

If you were to turn that on for lemmy.world as well I think it would get you better voting behavior from users all around.

I don’t think so. I think the more likely scenario is this would lead to people weaponizing other’s downvote history, and then very quickly people would stop downvoting completely. You’d have less downvotes overall, which is not always a good thing. At that point they should just remove the ability to downvote altogether, they’ll be accomplishing the same thing.

I am getting downvoted because people cant bother to read beyond one sentence.

Also, I dont care about imaginary internet points.

The solution is not one many people want to hear: reduce production costs.

Content is expensive to make mostly because the people making it keep demanding more pay for less work. While it is understandable that people want this, this is not sustainable for an economy. When the economy fails, prices go up. Demanding employers pay more will immediately raise prices the same amount the wages increase, effectively leaving employees who got a raise in the same place they were before but eith bigger numbers, and severely damaging the economy at the same time.

A show can be produced on a shoestring budget. Yes, the quality is lower than a million dollar movie. However, that doesn’t make the show bad. The X-Files was a great show produced on a tiny budget in its first season with phenomenal writing. Yet in the final season, it had a bigger budget but the writing was awful. In fact, most shows these days have awful writing. And the writers of these shows with bad writing are demanding more pay, yet their writing quality does not indicate they deserve increased pay. Certainly if a writer is outputting great work that should be rewarded, but increasing the pay of writers outputting garbage writing can only lead to more expensive garbage.

Then you get to costume, props, and visual effects. First, the damaged economy from before appears in costumes and props material cost. This is unavoidable. In many cases, I would say that good practical effects are cheaper and more convincing than cheap CG. My solution is simply go back to the way films were made in the 70s and 80s. Ditch the bad CG and go for more practical effects.

Last we have actors. Actors do not need more than 100k per film, and thats for the huge actors. Simple to understand, really. So many actors live opulent, overpaid lives, when they could live more simply, more normally, off of much less.

The above aalso applies to directors, producers, streaming company executives and CEOs.

Fix all these and your show production costs plummet. Now you can offer your streaming service at the same cost or cheaper than before while having a larger profit margin.

Considering the people that run Beehaw and their very fast defederation, I can’t imagine that their statement of wanting to refederate is anything other than a mere pleasantry. I doubt they really want to.

And its fine, small communities are easier to manage. Its not like we are really missing out on much.

Trolls? In most regions of the planet, I am fairly certain their actions would be considered criminal.

Yes, I agree with my fellow homo sapiens as well.

I certainly agree it could be more difficult to grow, but the cost of slower growth to keep nefarious actors from “infecting” instances may be a good tradeoff, IMO.

Of course, I don’t know all the details, and can only comment on my own knowledge of how Lemmy works, which may be wrong. But I would imagine that such a system, whereby instances are federated by default, would not be in the best interests of instance hosters or end users.

A truly free society would have no consequences, laws, or restraints on behaviour.

You can see a very obvious reason why that would be very bad. Thus there is no society on Earth that is truly free. Restrictions exist to protect people, that is the nature of things.

I don’t understand why Lemmy is constructed in a manner where instances are automatically federated with other instances by default. Wouldn’t it make more sense, from a security standpoint, to change that so instances are automatically defederated with all other instances by default?

Thats like creating a new social media account where you are automatically friends with everyone else, and you have to selectively remove people as they become problems.

Well, in a truly “free” society, yes freedom of speech would constitute freedom from “social consequences.” However, the United States, and in fact, no Earth government, is a truly free society. There are rules and laws that exist, thus restricting freedoms. However, specifically regarding freedom of speech as it is mentioned in US law, it specifically is a protection for citizens from retaliation by the US government, and does not cover interactions between citizens.

So I wouldn’t say “freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from social consequences,” but rather “freedom of speech does not include a requirement that others listen.” There are laws with regards to how other citizens can respond, including laws against assault and libel and such. But there is no law that says anyone must to listen to what you have to say simply because you have the freedom to say it. Thats quite a preposterous idea.

At least in the US, each citizen has the right to say what they choose within the constraints established by law, and to choose who they will listen to.

For most hackers or wanna-bes (often called Script Kiddies, that is, people (generally young, even children thus the “Kiddies”) who are not technologically inclined enough to be real hackers and see a tutorial online on how to run pre-written scripts that repeatedly perform various functions), the answer to “Why do you do it?” is often:

1. “Because I was bored.”

2. “Because I can.”

Very rarely are other reasons given.