You said, and I quote “Find a better way.” I don’t agree with your premise - this is the better way - but I gave you a straightforward, reasonable way to achieve something important to you… and now you’re saying that “This is a discussion of principle.”

You’ve just proven that it doesn’t take a moderator to turn a conversation into a bad joke - you can do it on your own.

It’s a discussion of principle.

This is a foreign concept?

It appears to be a foreign concept for you.

I don’t believe that it’s a fundamentally bad thing to converse in moderated spaces; you do. You say “giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing” like it’s a fact, indicating you believe this, but you’ve been given the tools to avoid giving others the power to moderate your conversation and you have chosen not to use them. This means that you are saying “I have chosen to do a thing that I believe is fundamentally bad.” Why would anyone trust such a person?

For that matter, is this even a discussion? People clearly don’t agree with you and you haven’t explained your reasoning. If a moderator’s actions are logged and visible to users, and users have the choice of engaging under the purview of a moderator or moving elsewhere, what’s the problem?

It is deeply bad that…

Why?

Yes, I know, trolls, etc…

In other words, “let me ignore valid arguments for why moderation is needed.”

But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke.

It doesn’t.

And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

In places where moderator’s actions are unlogged and they’re not accountable to the community, sure - and that’s true on mainstream social media. Here, moderators are performing a service for the benefit of the community.

Have you never heard the phrase “Trust, but verify?”

Find a better way.

This is the better way.

Then why are you doing that, and why aren’t you at least hosting your own instance?

Yes, I know, trolls etc. But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke. And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

Not just trolls - there’s much worse content out there, some of which can get you sent to jail in most (all?) jurisdictions.

And even ignoring that, many users like their communities to remain focused on a given topic. Moderation allows this to happen without requiring a vetting process prior to posting. Maybe you don’t want that, but most users do.

Find a better way.

Here’s an option: you can code a fork or client that automatically parses the modlog, finds comments and posts that have been removed, and makes them visible in your feed. You could even implement the ability to reply by hosting replies on a different instance or community.

For you and anyone who uses your fork, it’ll be as though they were never removed.

Do you have issues with the above approach?

As a user, you can:

• Review instance and community rules prior to participating
• Review the moderator logs to confirm that moderation activities have been in line with the rules
• If you notice a discrepancy, e.g., over-moderation, you can hold the mods accountable and draw attention to it or simply choose not to engage in that instance or community
• Host your own instance
• Create communities in an existing instance or your own instance

If you host your own instance and communities within that instance, then at that point, you have full control, right? Other instances can de-federate from yours.

That sounds like something someone who’s never heard of gerrymandering or voter suppression would say.

From https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccines-reduce-long-covid-risk-new-study-shows

At the pandemic’s onset, approximately 10% of people who suffered COVID-19 infections went on to develop Long COVID. Now, the risk of getting Long COVID has dropped to about 3.5% among vaccinated people (primary series).

…

Then, the team conducted analyses to uncover the reasons for the observed decline in Long COVID cases from the pre-Delta to Omicron eras. About 70% of the decline was attributable to vaccination, they found.

Apparently there’s a vulnerability with sending messages with images in them and “she” might be logging people’s IP addresses through that.

If the images are hosted on your instance, this wouldn’t be relevant. If they’re links to an image hosted somewhere, this is possible, but there’d be a lot of noise and not much value. To link accounts to IPs the URLs would themselves need to be different

I checked the urls to the images in my PMs and they’re all hosted on Lemmy.

Orcas are dolphins, though. Do you mean bottlenose dolphins specifically?

I’m not the person you responded to, but I can say that it’s a perfectly fine take. My personal experience and the commonly voiced opinions about both browsers supports this take.

Unless you’re using 5 tabs max at a time, my personal experience is that Firefox is more than an order of magnitude more memory efficient than Chrome when dealing with long-lived sessions with the same number of tabs (dozens up to thousands).

I keep hundreds of tabs open in Firefox on my personal machine (with 16 GB of RAM) and it’s almost never consuming the most memory on my system.

Policy prohibits me running Firefox on my work computer, so I have to use Chrome. Even with much more memory (both on 32 GB and 64 GB machines) and far fewer tabs (20-30 at most vs 200-300), Chrome often ends up taking up far too much memory + having a substantial performance drop, and I have to to through and prune the tabs I don’t need right now, bookmark things that can be done later, etc…

Also, see https://www.techspot.com/news/102871-zero-regrets-firefox-power-user-kept-7500-tabs.html - I’ve never seen anything similar for Chrome and wasn’t able to find anything.