It sounds like community pruning is the better solution here. Users don’t need to find dead remote communities in their search results. If there are multiple active communities, that’s not an issue, and there’s no real reason to homogenize them behind lizard brain FOMO. If there’s one active community and 6 dead ones, there’s no reason for users to find any of the dead ones.
Forcibly merging communities that exist on completely different websites just because they run the same, or even just similar, software continues to scream “I want centralization”.
Forcibly merging communities that exist on completely different websites just because they run the same, or even just similar, software continues to scream “I want centralization
No, it’s just consolidation of activity to a sustainable level.
Forcibly merging communities that exist on completely different websites just because they run the same, or even just similar, software continues to scream “I want centralization”.
The “merging” in Proposal 3 would be mutually opt-in by community moderators, not forced.
It sounds like community pruning is the better solution here. Users don’t need to find dead remote communities in their search results.
Who gets to determine if a community is dead or not? That seems like a form of centralization.
It sounds like community pruning is the better solution here.
This I absolutely would agree with. An option to hide communities that haven’t gotten at least X amount of activity recently, so you can find them if you want to, but there’s some kind of indication whether it’s programming@super.active.place or programming@crickets x5 that you want to access, sounds great.
It sounds like community pruning is the better solution here. Users don’t need to find dead remote communities in their search results. If there are multiple active communities, that’s not an issue, and there’s no real reason to homogenize them behind lizard brain FOMO. If there’s one active community and 6 dead ones, there’s no reason for users to find any of the dead ones.
Forcibly merging communities that exist on completely different websites just because they run the same, or even just similar, software continues to scream “I want centralization”.
No, it’s just consolidation of activity to a sustainable level.
Consolidation happened in the past
Those communities have no active counterpart, are they a threat to decentralization?
The “merging” in Proposal 3 would be mutually opt-in by community moderators, not forced.
Who gets to determine if a community is dead or not? That seems like a form of centralization.
This I absolutely would agree with. An option to hide communities that haven’t gotten at least X amount of activity recently, so you can find them if you want to, but there’s some kind of indication whether it’s programming@super.active.place or programming@crickets x5 that you want to access, sounds great.