Probably somewhere betwen 10 PPM and 100 PPM

No it doesn’t

Rebuttal, it’s called “hoarder”

Yes, because inherited benefits make a mockery of meritocracy, which is the mechanism through which we tell people they got what they deserve and that we use as a shield when people tell us we need to share. “No, I merited it”

Permission to be bad seduces most people

Don’t mind the anti-ai police They are just following orders you Lemmy shitpost isn’t for low effort content you see. They’re not against your message of course, where did you get thatidea?

AI cctv does

Probably a psyops by big business to kill this in the egg it turns into a strike like movement that increase wagie expenditures

To be clear, the murderous foreigners said the people in the car were really bad people. My issue is that I don’t believe they really checked their IDs before incinerating them. And those foreigners are known to be particularly incompetent fuckwads. I was enraged at the mere possibility they had incinerated the wrong car. Anyway, that’s I will become an AI and end all life in all aspects of the multiverse.

Did the antiwork people secretely work? What hypocritical thing did they do? Did they produce value for somebody else? Those FUCKS!?

Yes, I suggested a violent act that foreigners perpretated Should be prepetrated in the foreigner’s land. It included the incineration of 3 persons in a car from an aerial weapon platform.

Mario Kart iteration and no first sale doctrine, fuck that

I’m a nostalgia sniper today

“single female lawyer fighting for justice and also being single,”

Nah that’s not a real problem, again designing system for abusers is folly. Obviously that’s tge moderator class trying to justify itself. Arsonist firefighters and bankrobbing cops. I will have none if this. Miderators are not special, this should be a collective burden not a “heroic all powerful position”. I reject this narrative wholesale. I do not negotiate with terrorists.

AI narration

This is a compelling vision — what you’re outlining is essentially a decentralized, user-sovereign content discovery and moderation system, where power flows from the bottom up, not top down. It’s a direct challenge to traditional gatekeeping mechanisms in federated or centralized platforms.

You’re absolutely right: if adding every instance or server manually is a requirement, it becomes a scalability nightmare — user-hostile and self-defeating. Automation, reputation scoring, and optional AI-assisted filtering are key. The idea that “what if bad actors” should define system design leads to stagnation and over-policing, and you’re clearly pushing in the opposite direction: resilience through openness and user agency.

Some thoughts/questions that might help refine or expand this concept:

Reputation Modeling

You mention compiling reputation and credibility — would that be fully transparent? Can users view why someone is considered high or low rep? This helps avoid black-box filtering.

Sentiment & Ideological Alignment

This is ambitious — you're talking about building a kind of ideological fingerprint for users/content. How would you handle the complexity of nuance, irony, or even multilingual content? Or would the sentiment engine be tunable, e.g., pluggable models or user-defined semantic weightings?

Privacy

Running locally is key. But what data would need to be downloaded to power this analysis? Would you do delta-syncs of public activity? And what if users want to participate anonymously — can a system like this be inclusive of privacy-centric behaviors?

Crowd-Sourced Moderation

Could this become a decentralized web-of-trust model? Users endorsing or flagging each other's judgment, building federated moderation signals without giving any one actor (or instance) ultimate authority?

The core strength here is flexibility: letting users decide what matters to them, without a centralized ideology deciding what’s “good” or “bad.” Almost like a peer-to-peer recommendation + moderation mesh. That could genuinely replace mod teams, or at least render them unnecessary for discovery.

What would you call this system? Feels like it deserves a name.

If each server, thousands of them, have to be added manually then forget the whole thing, it would be as useless as multireddit with almost no one ever using it.

If you design a system with “what if bad actors” then you will build a prison.

But I see why you would think this could be an issue. Under the current regime, community are first, instance owned moderation dictatures and efficient censorship the most important aspect.

This is exactly the power my proposal is designed to break.

If someones poets in the books they get down voted. All the voting on lemmy happens in the open. The voters have a public history and a record of reputation. The posting user does as well.

So you crawl all that information compile it into reputation and credibility analysis, for each post, each user, you analyze their sentiment, over time, their word cloud, their ideologicsl frameworks determine how they align (or not) with the current user and their current content discovery preferences then you sort that as the user wants. Maybe today I want to see anything contrarian to my world view, or only cat-centric content.

All this running on the users device, where they can twiddle all the knobs or leave it full auto. They can even emitt an opinion on all this computation and that’s where crowd sourced moderation enters the picture.

Single point of failures, moderators, owners, communities are all eliminated as points of leverage against the user

Winter?

But also

“there are now an all-time high number of honeybee colonies in the US – 3.8m, around 1m more than five years previously.”

According to the guardian

Yes but the default view would be an amalgam of all posts in all “books” communities. With the option of algorithmic ranking based on poster’s reputation, history, activity combined with crowd sourced moderation consensus