It has

Or do you have an existing project that requires additional effort to enable further development?

So I assume the Lemmy devs should be good to reapply.

Here’s a handy site to check your federation status: https://phiresky.github.io/lemmy-federation-state/site?domain=social.packetloss.gg

It looks like all the sites are lagging, which can sometimes mean there is an issue. What’s the specs of the server? Can you try restarting it and seeing if that helps?

There are issues for servers hosted in places like Australia because of the latency in communicating with .world due to how big it is and how much data it sends because of this.

Pop got me into Linux in July 2021 (i switched the same time as the steamdeck was announced) and I ran Pop for a good two and a half years. Great distro.

Now I’m on EndeavourOS, but it was Pop that helped me make the transition.

Most other social networks allow users to select whether they are reporting a violation of community rules, or site rules as whole.

Why not take this approach to simplify it then?

Asking the user to specify who they think should receive a report feels like it will add confusion (not to mention is subjective anyway), and could create delays in responding to important stuff if the user picks the “wrong” option. If a user picks the mod option on csam report then it might get missed by an admin? At least the option between “this community” or “site rules” is a bit clearer.

This is to prevent cases of admins accidentally preventing mods from moderating according to their own community rules

As an admin I should be able to respond to a mod report on a community if I’m there first and its urgent, i.e. csam. This is a policy/discussion point between mods and admins on any given instance and shouldn’t be enforced in the software. Separation for clarity’s sake is fine, I even encourage that as I don’t tend to touch a report for a community anyway as it stands, but I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I’m just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity.

Admins can still always explicitly take over communities by making themselves mods, in this way, they are able to handle mod reports for any abandoned communities, etc

Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here. Continuing with Admins being able to mark reports resolved just makes sense.

Alternatively, we could make reporting even more granular. It would be possible to allow users to select only a specific instances admins as the intended report audience, for example.

No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of using Meta’s report functionality you’ll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their “granularity”.

Simplicity of use and getting a report to someone who can do something about it quickly should always be the priority, adding options and functionality should be secondary and support this. If you don’t want to be stepping on moderators toes, make that clear in your guidelines and processes.

I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.

To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.

+1 for pop, used it for 2 years with very few issues on an nvidia gpu

This incorrectly lists Lemmy.zip as federated - we’ve been defederated for months.

I dont think this site is accurate.

The tories have been villains since 2010. Plenty of Russian money still floating around there I’m sure.

Have only seen the clip of the LMG employee saying what they said from GN’s video, but seems quite an over-reaction from GN and the other company IMO. Definitely some form of baiting for views, even if parts of the video are valid.

Keep it up db0, a lot of us across the fediverse appreciate what you’ve built!

c/[email protected] rule 3:

Don’t request or link to specific pirated titles

Literally wasn’t even an issue. Its a bad take by power tripping admins spurred on by a troll. All-round terrible decision.

Also comparing a Lemmy community to Pirate Bay is a gross exaggeration.

The communities discuss piracy, not host the content. They are two different things.

The user that requested it was a troll account create dhours before. The same user then went on to create a transphobic community and post hate. Not the sort of person the admins should be knee jerking to.

And yet they insist on keeping registrations open and tarnishing the lemmy name with their shit uptime and terrible, terrible decisions like this. Fuck them.

Its been deleted now, but that person has successfully trolled every lemmy.world user and is obviously full of hate and intolerance.

same account name (different instance) is also posting transphobia on https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/nomoretroons

https://lemmy.world/post/3175920

100% spot on. I got called all sorts of names for pointing this out, but maybe my own fault for pointing it out on one of their posts! 😅

I’d say Nginx Proxy Manager is the easiest reverse proxy I’ve used.

While I appreciate that, the issues caused by lemmy.world to many other admins can be monumental. If the instance goes down, it causes many people to wonder why federation has stopped working, despite the fact the home server is fine. All that content in one place is not only against the point of federation, its a risk to the existence of lemmy if the owner just decided to walk away tomorrow. While im sure he wont, and im sure many users would try to recreate or move communities elsewhere if he did, a large core percentage of lemmy wouldnt come back, and that is the risk.

As I said, I sympathise with their technical issues, hell this instance has had hours of downtime because of SQL queries, but claiming they aren’t too big is not a valid response. Just because imbalanced instances happens elsewhere doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue here, especially because of the problems with the back end.

Their refusal to acknowledge the complete imbalance, or to do anything about it, is IMO an actual problem for lemmy.

Ps it’s OK to disagree with me, but I’d rather people explain why than just downvote. Can’t have a proper discussion with a downvote.

Ah no, sorry, while I sympathise with your technical issues, the rest of your post is disingenuous at best.

Lemmy.world being too big is bad for Lemmy as a product/software/“brand” etc - your downtime, being the instance most people link to, is a LOT of people’s first impression and when it spends time being down, people associate THAT downtime with Lemmy, and not the hundreds of other instances that don’t have downtime.

The issue isn’t even about you being the biggest instance, its the absolute imbalance in both users and communities on one instance and you willingly allowing it continue. If you genuinely cared about Lemmy, you would close registrations now.

You have enough “technical” people to build your own instance from the source code with that change for the banner built in (and you could go ahead and submit the PR/Issue anyway), but you haven’t - instead placing the blame on the developers. Hell, you only made the PR 5 hours ago after weeks of other admins asking you to close the instance.

You could even make the simple change to the sign up link instead lead to join-lemmy, but for whatever reason you want to continue to be the biggest instance and don’t care about the wider lemmy ecosystem and the effect that it has.

They’re not dodgy links.