Yea. With the Maverick thing, I think the reality that comes out of it is that it’s never one or the other (practical v CGI), or even a “blend” or “balance” but literally both at the same time … practical to aid filming/acting and to act as a reference and then VFX, whenever desirable, using the practical effects as references, lighting cues and even elements to be copied/modeled etc. The dichotomy being presented or pedaled is dumb because in the end it’s “movie magic” which entails a whole industrial scale raft of tricks and processes that will do what they need to deliver the look they want, in which VFX is just one tool amongst many.

Fair … I don’t really care that much TBH … it just seemed to be blurring the lines and I’ve always been ambivalent about the strident anti-support stance of this community … so I thought it’d put it out there.

Call me a shit stirer but I can’t help but wonder if this violates rule 3? Which I say not to have this removed from here but because of the IMO weirdness of not wanting any lemmy-support posts here as though lemmy isn’t a growing space in need of supporting new users.

It’s not just true, there’s a history of this mentioned in the replies to the original masto comment. Pixelfed is a direct competitor/alternative to instagram and meta’s has a pretty clear policy of not giving it any airtime on their platforms.

Why, well they dominate the instagram style platform space (and I’d guess it’s their biggest platform ATM and most prospective going forward). Twitter-style platforms are new for them and introduce monopoly issues … so they toy with the fediverse to allay potential issues.

I think all of the schmoozing the likes of Evan, Gargron etc are doing with meta (they have active accounts on Threads AFAIU, for instance) will reveal their true colours (techbro growth mindset just the hipster way) and leave them with egg on their face.

Well I’m sure there are a number of nice ways of arranging federated delete, including your suggestion, but it seems to me that the issue is guaranteeing a delete across all federated servers where the diversity of software and the openness/opt-out-ness of federation basically ensure something somewhere will not respect a request out of either malice, ignorance or error.

Ultimately, it seems a weird thing to be creating and expecting fediverse platforms in the image of those designed with complete central control over all data and servers. Like we’re still struggling to break out of the mould.

Even if one platform makes a perfect arrangement for something like delete, so long as servers running that platform push to / federate with servers that run something else, where it’s ultimately impossible to tell what they’re running because it’s someone else’s server, there will be broken promises.

I’m interested to hear your response on this actually, because it increasingly seems to me like we haven’t got to terms yet with what decentralisation actually means and how libertarian some of its implications are once you care about these sorts of issues.

I suspect it gets to the point where for social activity some people may start realising that they actually want a centralised body they can hold to account.

And that feeling secure on a decentralised social media platform requires significant structural adjustments, like e2ee, allow-list federation, private spaces, where public spaces are left for more blog like and anonymous interactions.

Also, sorry, end rant.

Moderation is obviously important, but what are the realities around deletion in a federated ecosystem?

I feel like the push around this and GDPR are similar to the DMs situation in mastodon, where you might feel like you’ve deleted your stuff but it’s actually very much out there still.

I’m sure there’s a middle ground where some amount of deletion occurs and it’s better than nothing. But as with the BlueSky bridge conversation, it seems to me having a frank conversation about the kind of system we’re dealing with here is just as important.

Oh my.

Hmmm. With tenforward too, lemmy kinda needs multi-communities yesterday.

I saw someone else post this:

The legal presumption of the “reasonable person”, often criticised by legal scholars, has most successfully been debunked, of all things, by social media.

assuming the name of the community can be changed that is

It’s just like with user accounts. The alias can be whatever you want but the address is static. Fortunately I’d say “house of the dragon” counts as a decent catch all for a ASOIAF community.

yea, maybe, but the admin of lemm.ee has been very open and responsible in their administration of the instance. If they decided to walk I think it likely they’d hand things over to anyone willing to take up the reins.

I haven’t seen anything. Hopefully nothing tragic happened. Otherwise, there’s obviously a bit of scope for this, for a single admin to just walk.

I think as communities/instances get to be more of a big deal, we as users should ask for multiple admins and moderators and multiple contact points (eg a mastodon account) so that there are fail safes and clear signals. So, if a single admin walks, there’s someone else with the keys. Or at least if the instance goes dark we have the alternative contact to at least get a signal about what’s happening.

I don’t think this was crossing any lines? People should know about the Traditional Art Community!

Just a general point about this New Communities community.

This Traditional Art community isn’t really new (over a month old) … but IMO that is not just fine but good … I think using this community as a way of sharing communities that are probably new to many, despite not being terribly young, is a great thing to aid discovery!

Obviously there’d be a line beyond which would be just advertising, but I also think that that would be a fairly clear line.

Another thing worth considering, maybe, is it might be good to have a community rule for distinguish actually new communities and newly suggested communities in the title.

Huh … funny.

Still, from lemmy.world’s perspective, I can appreciate the logic. I think many were thinking that lemmy.world would be the “everything” instance. Instead, it’s probably best thought of as the “vanilla” instance, which frankly makes sense. In a decentralised ecosystem, where moderation policies are allowed to be specific and don’t need to bend over to try to be as expansive as possible, because any other alternative policy can be easily deployed on another instance, it makes perfect sense. It’s just some were expecting something broader as a direct substitute for reddit without having to worry about the whole decentralisation thing.

In many ways I hope not.

On the whole, I really don’t like Discovery. But we all know what the show is and isn’t and now it’s cancelled with Trek moving on in other forms. There isn’t really anything to talk about any more apart from some insightful retrospectives. A community full of people critiquing a show for being what we all know it is in its fifth season doesn’t sound like a necessarily healthy thing TBH.

I mean, I read the article you linked to (and wrote?), and it wasn’t really substantive, so I’m not sure moderating it was particularly egregious. I liked talking about the history of nu-trek production and what people have been involved at what times … that’s interesting stuff! But most of the opinions in the article were, IMO, crude, shallow and unsubstantiated TBH.

Still, I think it’s been made clear … this community will be about fostering a more openly critical and opinionated space … that’s cool … go for it. It might be nice to explain that in the sidebar or something if it hasn’t already.

One that isn’t restricted to Paramount approval.

Wait … what? You think startrek.website (I’m guessing) is subject to Paramount’s whims or astroturfing? Where does that come from?

I’m also guessing part of the idea of this community is to be more openly critical like the “free people, we don’t bend the knee” sort of sub-reddit? Which is fine … just trying to get a feel here and I think being open and clear is good.

Having a lot of communities for the same topic is ultimately good, but the user experience needs to be good too.

Yea, and we’re in a moment right now where making a new parallel community can actually disrupt the user experience, IMO.

Though, to be clear, it would be good if some features came to make it easier to participate and keep up with multiple parallel communities.

Yea like I said, not against parallel communities at all. Just curious what the motivation is here, and also feel that right now, just as the migration wave has stopped, it might be a good time to sort of “take care of the space” where we can.

Though I do hope user defined multi-communities come at some point to help out smaller communities. It’s so easy to lose track of them as a user.