There is no evidence for algorithm-based voting and those are mostly controversial posts which discuss the very acceptance of LLMs into a program, ie there is no guarantee that they belong into the respective community.

This can’t be real?

Huh, I browse Subscribed regularly, All I don’t? When a post doesn’t belong in a community I know (ie regardless of subscription status) I vote down.

*jumps*

No. Some communities I don’t want to see regularly, but I know how the community works.

The point is that languages without large speakerbases might consider barging in with the most recognized languages rude, while languages with similar status might find it normal.

Profits are a bit like internal taxes on wages.

Co-op NPOs should use these taxes to further the company’s goals instead of crude extraction into the goals of the owners.

Those aren’t perfect, because once they reach a certain size any form of corruption can have big bad consequences. The Fediverse approach to this is “decentralisation”, but all decentralisation efforts have an API vulnerability - there needs to be a central body that develops the “language” between the actors.

On the other hand, you might not have an ear for any of this, because you might be dependent on your business’ profits.

deleted by creator

it’s not even this instance

Some supermarkets have them

Germans don’t have sentences, they have long words.

Sabbel ma nich so vonner seit döspaddel

SPEAK ENGLISH ÖR DIE

Toodaloo

Was?

If this were a strategic stance by Meta, what would be reasons of them for it?

I’d argue that at this point, sticking to the collective vs individual dichotomy of climate attribution and action potential is climate action delayist. When your argument relies you or your group intentionally doing absolutely nothing to combat climate change, you don’t really have climate change in mind.

Leftism sometimes cares more about class than its very foundation, the environment, to understand why there is a problem with blame-shifting.

I’ve seen this in a similar fashion in relationship advice forums: Commenters not engaging with the issue or person, but knee-jerk reacting with advising instant breakup.

I haven’t been on reddit for over a year, but I cannot imagine that topics like say atheism don’t polarise. What makes you think it is the case?

I don’t quite understand your point. Do you maybe have some examples to understand better?

I never interacted with mozilla.social, but I wonder if they considered organising mozilla.social through a connected volunteer association, before deciding to shutdown.