I’d like the name to be “community feed” and “feeds” for short. Reddit was always essentially a collective rss with voting weights. In this way “subs” would still work since one subscribes to the feeds.
Ultimately it’s something the devs need to encourage though
I agree, but it takes less than 10 min and is more impactful than lemmy posts
Even with IP, there is very little stopping the big actors from developing something similar but debatable distinct, at a larger scale. By the time the lawsuit clears, they’ve wrecked your profitablity.
In fact, more often you see big companies act as patent trolls, using IP as a bludgeon to threaten smaller players who don’t have an army of lawyers. See, DMCA takedowns to suppress speech, patent trolls, and esp trademark nonsense.
Trade secrets fit your example best, but more often than not that’s something that relies on worker restrictions rather than traditional “IP”
Intellectual property is cultural theft.
I agree 90%, downvotes shouldn’t have that much weight. That said, comments which are abusive or hateful probably should have long term consequences for the user, even if they are themselves not worthy of a ban. Maybe reputation can be a “strike” for number of reported comments.
To be clear, here I’m thinking of “dogwhistle” comments which individually are plausibly fine, but in aggregate indicate this person is up to no good.
It’s really an issue with how the fediverse handles communities. On Reddit each sub had its own moderation/governance structure which I think fits the role of an “instance” best. Here, each instance has a variety of communities which may overlap with other instance.
I.e. banning an instance for having community X impacts community Z who may also dislike X.
Without ripping up the floorboards, I suspect the answer is instances having community-level granularity in blocking. So one can block: The_Donald@*, *@sh.itjust.works, or most narrowly The_Donald@sh.itjust.works
It’s not that straightforward. Copyright is different in that infringement is only enforced by rightsholders through litigation. That means they hato find you, sue you, and make a convincing argument that your backup is harming their market viability.
On that last point, some personal backup is unlikely to be found to be infringing. It’s more problematic if it’s something shared or done in a significant scale.