bogdugg

For clarity:

• The 41% number combines both instances that have actually blocked Threads and those who have pledged to do so at some point, so "have blocked" is a bit misleading
• As stated, this is a percentage of instances, not users. Roughly 24% of users are on instances that have limited, blocked, or pledged to block Threads.

This does not apply when you can move or make your own instance. It's like complaining about tyranny inside your own house. Like, what?

I think a perfectly acceptable line to draw is "Is it reasonable to expect a large majority of the people on this instance would want this other instance blocked?" If the answer is yes, block them. If somebody has a problem with that, move to a different instance.

I don't really understand what the problem is.

I don't know if there's a service that provides both functions. I'm sure there's a way to do it - Lemmy posts are already accessible through Mastodon. Currently, I assume you would need the instance itself to offer both services under one account.

I would just write the world in a way that is interesting to you, and add to it as players show interest. "Hey, I want to play a Tabaxi" -> "oh okay, let me think about what that means and I'll get back to you." This also gives you more latitude for using their ideas to inform the world. "I want to play a Tabaxi Wizard" -> "oh interesting, maybe there's a clan of them that..."

You'll be able to focus on what you care about, which will make the world more interesting, and allow players to incorporate things they care about if they wish, which will make it more fun for them too. Framing it in terms of "up for deletion" implies you need to answer everything about the world from the start, which is not only inefficient but an impossible standard. Just because you haven't considered something doesn't mean it can't exist.

I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.

Many Marvel films, for example, are actually competently written plot wise. I also believe lots of them have basically no value.

Gonna try to phrase this an inflammatory way:

People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are 'good enough', and they don't value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.

On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.

"Instances" at the bottom of the page will take you to a list of, I believe, federated instances, and at the very bottom, blocked instances.

The left doesn’t want free speech.

You've placed the bar so low that this suggests there is nothing an individual person can say or do that would warrant being banned, which is frankly bullshit. Every forum has rules, including this one, as it should. This is critical for maintaining a place of a discussion that is actually useful. I see no reason why "yeah but they're popular" should give license to skirt the rules.

Freedom of speech, in the US at least, exists specifically to prevent the state from restricting speech. That's all it is, and all it needs to be. Banning users from a private website does not contradict this.

The suggestion that unbanning Alex Jones makes the service less susceptible to 'ignorant propaganda' is also laughable.

I think you've correctly identified a problem, but misidentified the solution.

It's true that there are many redundant communities of which everyone would be better served if there were an easy way to group them together. The solution, however, is not to reduce the number of instances, but rather to provide more tools for instances to group communities together. You want communities to be spread across many instances because this maximizes user control - it's kind of the entire point? But of course, the lack of grouping makes it very difficult to try to centralize discussion, which is important for the community to grow. This service is still a work in progress, so these kinds of things - I hope - will come in time, as both the technology and culture develops.

tl;dr: centralized control bad, centralized discussion good, the current system does a bad job of reconciling these two positions

If you want, you can view science as a system of organization. A way of making sense of facts. If I give you a file of seemingly random ones and zeroes, it is useless. If I give you an algorithm to decode those ones and zeroes into a message, that has utility. However, somebody else could produce an algorithm to decode those same ones and zeroes into an entirely different message. So, which algorithm is correct? Neither.

But say I give you another file, and Algorithm B doesn't produce anything useful for this message, so now Algorithm A is more useful. But I also provide a new Algorithm C which also finds messages in both files. Now which is more correct, A or C? And on and on. We continue to refine our models of the data, and we hope that those models will have predictive utility until proven otherwise, but it is always possible (in fact, almost guaranteed) that there is a model of the universe that is more accurate than the one we have.

Consider the utility of a map. A map is an obviously useful thing, but it is also incomplete. A perfect map, a "true" map, would perfectly reproduce every single minute detail of the thing it is mapping. But to do so, it would need to be built at the same scale as the thing it is mapping, which would be far too cumbersome to actually use as, you know, a map. So, we abstract details to identify patterns to maximize utility. Science, likewise, is a tool of prediction, which is useful, but is also not true, because our model of the universe can never be complete.