a lot of low-quality posts that have been vetted by no one

It would be posts made by relevant reporters. So some type of vetting has been done already - by their own editors. ;)

Also: this could be implemented in a way that only presents a queue of posts to moderators, and moderators could then choose what gets published.

quality of Twitter and Reddit deteriorating

This is not really relevant. The idea is to get just the posts from the sport reporters, not the whole comment thread.

If you really mean communities, then I’m not sure I agree with any of the premises… Having “big” communities is not a bad thing. it’s already super difficult to get enough of a critical mass in any new community, and you are proposing a mechanism that will make it even harder. I also don’t think we shouldn’t be thinking in terms of “competition” when it comes to communities.

Unless you have deep disagreements with the mods of a community (no matter on which instance they are), it’s simpler/faster/easier for everyone if we stick to the already established places.

Communities or instances?

Lemmy devs are only going to do what they want to do when they want to do it.

I know, I agree, but I don’t really blame them. Either we need to find a way to support them with more resources so that they can increase their output, or we need to take it upon ourselves to make the changes that we would like.

This RFC is just about how to present the information returned from the API (activity pub is not involved at this level)

I know and it was clear from the beginning. I am just really tired of dealing with different clients and different accounts to participate in the Fediverse, and I really want to see more clients implementing the C2S side of ActivityPub…

I’m not a “Lemmy App developer”, but I am interested in having more fediverse apps that can rely on ActivityPub directly and less on the server-specific APIs, so I would propose something completely different:

1. Do not add any type of ad-hoc changes.
2. Image Galleries can and should be represented as ActivityPub collections. Push the Lemmy devs asking to add a “gallery” collection to the Page object.

Yeah, I know that this route would be a lot more complicated than pushing for a quick feature. Still, it seems worth doing.

Maybe because I created it?!

there is also !netflix@metacritics.zone. :)

Open source or GTFO. :)

Seriously, Lemmy is AGPL. Any client you do and any functionality you build on top of it must be AGPL as well.

Now I am confused, are you able to make changes to the Lemmy codebase? A fork? If you want to find a way to fund development, why not just work with the current team?

As a concept, it could be a valid approach. But you need to put actual numbers to see if things make sense:

• What would be the monthly membership fee?
• What would be a reasonable SLA? If there is an outage on a Friday night, are the members okay if they wait until Monday to get it back someone online?
• What do you think is a good hour rate to pay for an admin?
• What should you pay for someone to stay on call?
• Can I run bots? How many? Does each bot count as a separate account?

I think you’ll see that as soon as you start asking people to put money and to feel like they “own” it, the demands will increase and so will the costs.

For reference, the one coop I am somewhat familiar is from Mastodon: cosocial.ca. Each member pays CA$50/year for an account. I think this is particularly too expensive. There are other cheaper “commercial” alternatives that charge less:

• omg.lol offers mastodon and some other services, for $20/year
• mastodon.green offers accounts at $2/month
• Communick offers Mastodon/Lemmy/Funkwhale/Matrix accounts for $29/year (Disclosure, I’m founder)

Ok, which part of “multiple metrics” is not clear here?

Every risk analysis will have multiple factors. The idea is not to always have an absolute perfect ranking system, but to build a classifier that is accurate enough to filter most of the crap.

Email spam filters are not perfect, but no one inbox is drowning in useless crap like we used to have 20 years ago. Social media bots are presenting the same type of challenge, why can’t we solve it in the same way?

Platforms like Reddit and Tumblr need to optimize for growth. We need to have growth, but it is does not be optimized for it.

Yeah, things will work like a little elitist club, but all newcomers need to do is find someone who is willing to vouch for them.

Just add “account age” to the list of metrics when evaluating their trust rank. Any account that is less than a week old has a default score of zero.

Why does have it to be one or the other?

Why not use all these different metrics to build a recommendation system?

Well, I am on record saying that we should get rid of one-dimensional voting systems so I see your point.

But if anything, there is nothing stopping us from using both metrics (and potentially more) to build our feed.

That would be only true if people only marked that they trust people that conform with their worldview.

The indieweb already has an answer for this: Web of Trust. Part of everyone social graph should include a list of accounts that they trust and that they do not trust. With this you can easily create some form of ranking system where bots get silenced or ignored.

Would you like to bring this to https://nfl.community? I was thinking of having separate communities for highlights and memes as well.

How is that an answer to my question?

Oh, I guess I’ll bite…

If ads are not acceptable ever, please tell me how you think people should be supported.

• Crowdfunding is not enough.
• The culture is to reject any type of business, even when it’s a small mom-and-pop shop, or an indie dev.
• Co-ops could work, but (usually) require some level of affinity between the members (e.g: people from the same geographical region or artists working on some specific style/school) or they require some rich benefactor to bootstrap the venture.

Unless you are expecting people to just provide you free content forever, what do you suggest?