[email protected] has

  • 900 users / day
  • 1.58K users / week
  • 2.86K users / month

This community has

  • 61 users / day
  • 220 users / week
  • 483 users / month
  • pixelmeow@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    7 hours ago

    No. Different instances having similar communities is a good thing. Otherwise we get back to Reddit, which we don’t want.

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      3·
      4 hours ago

      Agreed. Not every instance is the same and rules aren’t always the same. I have no issue with posting in low member communities since they are federated anyway. Also, I don’t expect technical answers from dbzer0 users, from programming.dev users on the other hand, I do expect more than just “use X over Y because I somebody told me so”.

      Anti Commercial-AI license

  • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    132·
    8 hours ago

    I see no good reason to consolidate. Having more options is important in the Fediverse, in particular when the two servers where the communities are on have different focus and different TOS (as jet mentions).

    Maybe set up each other as affiliates / magazines / however min does it, but I see a merge as a flat downgrade.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    5·
    7 hours ago

    Thanks for the link, I now subscribed to that.

    I think there is no problem at all with having the same community on different instances. Each of them is its own website and should have communities for any topic in the world; federation merely makes sure we don’t need separate accounts for each of them.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    3·
    8 hours ago

    If you want my 2c, I would be in favor of consolidating here. Usually, I don’t think there is any harm to having multiple subs which overlap, but in the case where one seems like the “right” answer in terms of where to post, I feel like just having one actually probably is better.

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    56·
    10 hours ago

    No, dbzer0 does not allow the discussion of crypto currency, which is a useful privacy tool as used by privacy focused services like grapheneos, mullvad, cryptomator, proton, Tor, signal, molly, etc

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          5·
          8 hours ago

          Eh. That’s different. I get what you mean and I’m not even trying to weigh in on whether they should allow or disallow, but they also “use” the credit card system. That doesn’t mean someone should imply that they are endorsing it.

          • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
            11·
            8 hours ago

            I would say they are endorsing it by using it, but lets not split hairs. Not being about to talk about a funding part of many privacy tools is too restrictive for a privacy community.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
              4·
              8 hours ago

              I would say they are endorsing it by using it

              I feel like I just raised a counterexample to this. Like, literally just, in the very short message you’re responding to.

              Not being about to talk about a funding part of many privacy tools

              Again: Misleading. If you want to talk about crypto, fine. Be honest about what you want to do and why you think it’s important.

    • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      9 hours ago

      which is a useful privacy tool as used by privacy focused services like grapheneos, mullvad, cryptomator, proton, Tor, signal, molly, etc

      Don’t these use cryptography and not cryptocurrency? I think the rule is more about stuff like bitcoin which is (apart from monero) really bad for privacy because the transactions are more or less public

    • sp3ctr4lEnglish
      3·
      7 hours ago

      Here’s the actual text of that rule.

      No posts promoting cryptocurrency, blockchain or NFTs.

      While I do agree that this could perhaps be worded more clearly…

      I am 99% sure I have been in threads, on dbzer0, where db0 themself is actually commenting in the same thread, and I’ve mentioned monero in an actual security context, no problems.

      You could ask db0 about this, but my understanding is that the idea here is to prevent cryptoscam bullshit shilling, memecoin pump and dumps, all the scammy bullshit that is 99% of wider internet discourse around crypto.

      I’m pretty sure that the scenarios you describe, discussing XMR in the context of actually being a secure and private way to access other privacy and security enhancing stuff, is completely fine.

      The active verb in the rule is ‘promoting’, not ‘discussing’, as you say.

      I do agree this is a bit vague, strictly textually, but I am 99% confident the spirit of the rule is to prevent shilling and the creation of communities based around crypto trading.