All the crypto stuff is opt-in.

The ones I’d be definitely interested about adding:

• basketball reporters to !nba@nba.space and each team to their corresponding team (e.g, @celtics@sportsbots.xyz to !celtics@nba.space)
• NFL reporters to !nfl@nfl.community and each team to their corresponding team (e.g, @patriots@sportsbots.xyz to !patriots@nfl.community)
• Football (soccer) reporters to !main@soccer.forum and their teams.
• Baseball to !baseball@fanaticus.social (if the admin allows)
• Tennis players and reporters to !tennis@matchpoint.zone

Ok, but the whole idea of Fediverser is to let people get rid of Twitter/Reddit by giving people an alternative source of content. Sending content there would make those platforms more interesting, not less.

But why would you want your comments to be on Twitter?

If you mean that posts on Lemmy would be mirrored to Twitter, no.

a lot of low-quality posts that have been vetted by no one

It would be posts made by relevant reporters. So some type of vetting has been done already - by their own editors. ;)

Also: this could be implemented in a way that only presents a queue of posts to moderators, and moderators could then choose what gets published.

quality of Twitter and Reddit deteriorating

This is not really relevant. The idea is to get just the posts from the sport reporters, not the whole comment thread.

FYI: it looks like Trump is going to win the popular vote on this one as well.

Open source or GTFO. :)

Seriously, Lemmy is AGPL. Any client you do and any functionality you build on top of it must be AGPL as well.

Now I am confused, are you able to make changes to the Lemmy codebase? A fork? If you want to find a way to fund development, why not just work with the current team?

As a concept, it could be a valid approach. But you need to put actual numbers to see if things make sense:

• What would be the monthly membership fee?
• What would be a reasonable SLA? If there is an outage on a Friday night, are the members okay if they wait until Monday to get it back someone online?
• What do you think is a good hour rate to pay for an admin?
• What should you pay for someone to stay on call?
• Can I run bots? How many? Does each bot count as a separate account?

I think you’ll see that as soon as you start asking people to put money and to feel like they “own” it, the demands will increase and so will the costs.

For reference, the one coop I am somewhat familiar is from Mastodon: cosocial.ca. Each member pays CA$50/year for an account. I think this is particularly too expensive. There are other cheaper “commercial” alternatives that charge less:

• omg.lol offers mastodon and some other services, for $20/year
• mastodon.green offers accounts at $2/month
• Communick offers Mastodon/Lemmy/Funkwhale/Matrix accounts for $29/year (Disclosure, I’m founder)

Ok, which part of “multiple metrics” is not clear here?

Every risk analysis will have multiple factors. The idea is not to always have an absolute perfect ranking system, but to build a classifier that is accurate enough to filter most of the crap.

Email spam filters are not perfect, but no one inbox is drowning in useless crap like we used to have 20 years ago. Social media bots are presenting the same type of challenge, why can’t we solve it in the same way?

Platforms like Reddit and Tumblr need to optimize for growth. We need to have growth, but it is does not be optimized for it.

Yeah, things will work like a little elitist club, but all newcomers need to do is find someone who is willing to vouch for them.

Just add “account age” to the list of metrics when evaluating their trust rank. Any account that is less than a week old has a default score of zero.

Why does have it to be one or the other?

Why not use all these different metrics to build a recommendation system?

Well, I am on record saying that we should get rid of one-dimensional voting systems so I see your point.

But if anything, there is nothing stopping us from using both metrics (and potentially more) to build our feed.

That would be only true if people only marked that they trust people that conform with their worldview.

The indieweb already has an answer for this: Web of Trust. Part of everyone social graph should include a list of accounts that they trust and that they do not trust. With this you can easily create some form of ranking system where bots get silenced or ignored.

You were so eager to come up with a jab at other people that you seem to have ignored the second paragraph. It is pretty clear that you could benefit from a bit of introspection to look what you could offer to the world, instead of just trying to put everyone down.

Wishing you well.

Most people want social media to read and talk about the mundane things that are interesting to them (like sports, or their hobbies, or some new cool bar they want to go on, or some interesting places to travel) instead of using it to doomscroll and display outrage.

If all you want from social media is a place that constantly keeps you anxious and reminds you of how little power you have to change the things you are so pointless worrying about… then sure, Lemmy is more than enough as it is.

An Apollo-like Lemmy client that is also implemented as a PWA