I like this idea a lot! If/when you make a community for coordinating I’d love to be a part of it.

Great idea! I like that this also solves the problem of porn instances often defederating from each other and often being defederated from non-porn instances; with your site one account can access all the porn.

Thank you for the explanation! That’s wild, I’ve certainly visited SPA sites but I’ve never given much thought to what must be happening under the hood there. I guess it has its use cases but from a user’s pov the quirks can be kinda annoying. Case in point, I see why load wouldn’t do the trick - hope you can find why popstate wouldn’t either (and thanks again)!

I use the mobile site, so this is perfect! I’d been through the settings but totally missed that checkbox. Thank you!

It’s funny, I vaguely remember having comments sorted differently by default too, but I can’t seem to find any actual record of it. Mandela effect? Anyway, I’m hoping the option will be added soon, since I can’t get it to work quite right with a script:

window.addEventListener("load", function(event) { 
  	document.querySelector('[id$="-new"]').click();
})

This only seems to work when the page is refreshed for some reason. If you or anyone else happens to know a solution that’d be greatly appreciated, I don’t know javascript well.

I’ve been coming to realize how much votes affect the way I interact on Lemmy (and not in a good way). They have their utility of course, but if you’re sorting by new anyway they don’t really have an effect other than, like you said, giving a score to everything everyone says - which I’d really rather not be a part of my interactions as I find it does more harm than good. I hadn’t considered just hiding them entirely though, thanks for bringing that up as a possibility. What do you use to do that? Don’t suppose it’s anything that would work on mobile too?

What a great idea! I hope this goes well, it seems like a great solution to the profitability problem of the Fediverse. I wish more sites and services used this model.

Ironic

Time zones and limited schedules are the issue there. Smartphones for texting are difficult for him. But either way, that’s beside the point; what I’m trying to get at is that an inconvenience to you might be more than that to someone else. Learning a new platform might be easy for you, but it’s basically impossible for someone with dementia. Leaving a job that requires you to use unethical tools might be fine if you can get another one easily, but some people can’t. Not talking with friends on unethical social platforms might be fine if you have more social opportunities, but to someone with social issues, finding a group of people that you can be comfortable around isn’t trivial.

The comment I originally responded to was saying it’s unfair to compare oil/plastics industry with social media, because you have a choice with the latter but not the former; while that’s the case more often than not, it’s far from universal, and applying the same standards to someone for whom the opposite is true is unreasonable. You never know how much someone has to sacrifice to do things that might seem easy, and you never know how easy the things that seem hard might be.

I believe you responded to the wrong comment, as I didn’t post that comic. Either way-

It isn’t always a matter of convenience over necessity. For a personal example, my grandfather knows how to use Facebook and basically no other communication technology; he isn’t really able to learn new things now, so my options are to use Facebook or to not talk to him. If you’re saying I’m acting unethically unless I do the latter I don’t think much more needs to be said; if not, well, that’s my point.

It seems like we’re having two different conversations; I reread your comments as you suggested and it seems as if you’re responding to someone else. You’re talking about things completely unrelated from what I’m saying, and then implying I’m being unreasonable for being angry over something I’m not even angry about.

communications are a fundamental public utility and should be treated as such.

I agree completely. This was never in question and it feels like you’re implying I think otherwise when you keep reinforcing this point.

expecting your friends and family to use a billionaire’s private network as one of the sole ways of communicating is not really the same thing as being stuck buying your food with too much plastic on it.

one of these you really do have control over its not a forced choice its just one people think is.

at some point everyone made a choice here, they arent necessarily bad people for those choices but ignorance for whatever reason is on the menu.

This is what I take issue with. As a personal example, my grandpa knows how to make phone calls and use facebook; he doesn’t use technology much more than that, and he’s not in a state to learn how to use anything else right now.

So I use Facebook to talk with him. Not because I support Facebook, I just want to talk to my grandpa. I find it offensive when you imply those who use closed and/or ‘unethical’ platforms inherently do it out of ignorance, and that there’s always a choice; my only other choice is to not talk to my dying grandfather, and I won’t feel guilty for not taking that.

To be clear, in terms of big picture I’m with you on everything else you said.

communications are a fundamental public utility and should be treated as such.

That sums up my thoughts nicely.

I don’t feel this discussion has been in good faith; your last comment has some gaslighting (whether intentional or not) that I don’t think has a place in respectful conversation, so I won’t be responding further.

If you’re implying that the belief that companies should be held accountable for their actions and that communication platforms should be democratized is mutually exclusive from not villainizing people for wanting to communicate with their loved ones, I strongly disagree.

I’m not making excuses for the companies. I’m making excuses for the people at their mercy, who are just trying to survive with the hand they were dealt. People can’t be blamed for following the path of least resistance; the blame lies squarely with the path and those who made it, and fighting the people on that path who would gladly follow another is counterproductive.

Social media’s whole thing is the social aspect - if a community and/or its users are entrenched somewhere, they’re not likely to move because a minority has issues with the platform. It’s not unreasonable to want people to move away from Facebook/etc., but it’s not really true to say that’s a choice everyone has, if friends, family, and the communities or activities someone wants to engage with are there; if the options are communicating with loved ones on an ‘unethical’ platform or not communicating with them at all, it’s unreasonable and unfair to expect everyone to choose the latter.

I’m not sure what you mean about adorableporn trying to make anyone appear underage - I see no indication of that in the post in question, and that’s not the purpose of the community (it would even appear all non-OC posts must include proof of being above legal age). I’m not sure what your second sentence means. I had no intention of changing/mischaracterizing anyone’s post and I find it very ironic you say I did.

I agree. In this case the pictures in question include the model name, who you can research yourself and see is above 18. That community is strictly moderated, and requires model name, source, and age verification.

I thought it was a different community that was causing the issues; the reaction makes much more sense with that one. While I still don’t agree with the defederation it’s not nearly as unreasonable as it first seemed to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

Edit - nevermind, it actually was adorableporn, so yeah still weird.

There’s some further correspondence in the linked post, and yeah that’s basically what it boiled down to. What a strange world. I can’t believe that’s a real law.

So blahaj.zone defederated a whole instance because one community on lemmynsfw has pictures of (verified) adults that don’t look adult enough? That seems… extreme, and rather insulting to the women whose bodies/appearances are supposedly too close to actual children to be worthy of attraction. Glad that’s not my instance, though to each their own.

I think the point they were making was that someone whose home, safety, or means of income were damaged or destroyed would have a different perspective than someone who wasn’t adversely affected, regardless of the big picture.

Beautifully put my friend. If you ever run for office you have my vote.

I don’t know much about how any of this works, but my guess would be the embedded browser on Connect hasn’t been set up to block tracking? In which case you might try enabling the ‘open links in external browser’ option and see if you still get tracking attempts.