You should snopes check that one. They did acquire non working ships as payment, but they scrapped em. What you said is technically correct, but oversells it.
If I steal all of your money and invest it to grow over time then I’ll end up with even more money while you don’t benefit from the growth that should have been yours. Now we have children and pass on our wealth. You pass on less because it was stolen, and I pass on more because of what I stole. This multiplies over the generations and a disparity is maintained. My offspring will have better educations and better opportunities because of the wealth they had access to, and yours will have fewer opportunities because you don’t have the money to spend on them.
The goal of reparations is to attempt to correct some of this disparity. It tries to provide opportunities for people who don’t have it but would have if something in the past weren’t stolen.
For an example that’s easy to see: In the US, black people are less likely to know how to swim. This has nothing to do with them being black, but what opportunities they had access to. This is for many reasons. One part of it is that most places had community pools, but they had restrictions for people of color. When this was outlawed, they instead just closed the pools or added memberships that required payment.
People also built up wealth over time through property, but black people were prevented from getting loans to buy property except in redlined places. This prevented them from building up generational wealth like white people were allowed to do. (This is ignoring the whole slavery thing…) It causes ripples through time where their children have less opportunities, which then causes their children to have fewer, and so on.
Before implementing things like affirmative action or reparations, do any of us have any idea in mind for when reparations will be done making things “fair”? Or is the intent to have it go on forever? I’ve never heard this argument before and I’ve never heard of anyone having a set date for the end of affirmative action and the like, so it sounds like a slippery slope to future discrimination. This is probably what at least some of the “racist against white people” (and asian people) crowd are complaining about. I know I would be miffed if I lost an academic or career position to an objectively lower quality candidate due to something like government mandated diversity, regardless of how much I support civil rights. Obviously, ideally, everyone should have equal access to these opportunities and no one should be unable to get the education they want but that isn’t the kind of world we live in (at least in the USA).
Also, why can’t there be other ways to level the playing field in terms of environment, such as funding better schooling or housing for disparaged individuals, regardless of race? Despite black people having to fight an uphill battle in life, these things that uplift across the board without racial or ethnic discrimination would naturally end up helping them out more than others before leveling out as equality is achieved. The only problem, as always, is the bureaucracy involved.
I don’t know. Plenty if other groups arrived much later in western countries, often with little or nothing to their names and feeling persecution, and have done much much better.
I’ll give you that the specter of discrimination still haunted western institutions until quite recently. But blacks were not the only group that faced discrimination.
I am not black or white. I can offer a perspective of an immigrant who isn’t white. Looking at how blacks were targeted for arrests and the disproportionate amount of arrests while being brought up in economically challenging environments, it is very hard to “move up”.
I immigrated to a western country with qualifications and with a good sum in my bank account and still it was challenging. I cannot imagine how generational oppression will do to a persons psyche and their worldview.
That’s not a reparations issue, it’s an unfuck the cities that were fucked by Robert Moses and his buddies as well as funding public schools better, making hospitals public instead of privately owned, and changing the punitive justice system to a proper rehabilitation justice system.
Otherwise you’ll just see short term happiness and provide arguments for “we’re equal now, we paid reparations! What else do you want?”
I’d say both are required, and also reparations should never end. The rich should be taxed for their advantages and exploitation and money should be used to help raise poor people up. The problem can never be fixed. There will always be advantaged and disadvantaged people and exploiters and exploited people. Implying it should be a one time payment for a one time thing I think is missing what is trying to be solved.
This is hard for me to commit to an opinion on. I totally understand the argument that systemic injustices of the past have impacts today on the opportunities presented to descendants of affected individuals, therefore proactive steps are required to achieve equity. But solutions like requiring blanket reparations from one race to another seem to take for granted that everyone of the first race has been equally privileged by historical injustices, while everyone of the second race has been equally disadvantaged.
This obviously isn’t true. People of color are disproportionately likely to be disadvantaged, but there are people of color who lead highly privileged lives, and there are white people who are highly disadvantaged due to coming from low socioeconomic class, poor health, lack of access to education, etc.
The concept of reparations being paid on a basis of race necessarily involves the government forcing disadvantaged white, Asian, Latino, and other non-black people to become more institutionally disadvantaged, so that a group that contains highly privileged people of color can become more economically advantaged.
Something absolutely needs to be done, we need to be actively fighting for equity, but it’s hard for me to accept an argument that that should be done on the basis of race instead of addressing the causes of class-based inequality that will benefit disadvantaged black people along with disadvantaged people of other races.
For example, instead of seeking to improve the intergenerational income mobility of POCs in a system that restricts the income mobility of those without wealthy parents, we should fix the system and ensure a level playing field between someone who is born to high-school drop outs, and someone who was born to Ivy League graduates.
This is how I tend to view it too. We should be raising all poor people up and target wealth equality for everyone, regardless how they got there. I suppose reparations to POC would be a step in that direction but it by nature excludes people who might need help now. Idk, it’s a hard subject for me to form a solid opinion on too but I think social safety nets need to be prioritized for all.
I don’t know who implied paying it would be based on race. It should be based on class. Rich people are rich because they had advantages and exploited people. They should be taxed and the money should be used to raise up people who weren’t as advantaged or exploitative.
The entire concept of reparations for slavery is that non-black people will be forced to pay black people money, either as a one time lump-sum payment, or an open-ended pseudo-UBI. Some suggestions include mandated documentation of ancestral slabery, but the most popular ones don’t. The vehicle for this payment would be either increased taxes, or redirection of taxes.
If you’re not talking about race-based redistribution of wealth, you’re not talking about ‘reparations,’ which is what this thread is about.
Honestly, it should never stop. There should be wealth, inheritance, and estate taxes that even out advantages and disadvantages over time. Poor people shouldn’t be paying for it because of their race, rich people should because of their advantages.
This is just communism. Distribute wealth until everyone is equal. You don’t even need to bring race into the equation to achieve the same results as being proposed here.
This has always been an issue I get stuck on. If we hold current people liable for the crimes of their ancestors, how far back do we go?
The trans-atlantic slave trade was abhorrent, but slavery didn’t begin or end with it.
Do Egyptians owe Jews reperations due to how they were treated? Should the Italians compensate half of Europe and North Africa for what the Romans did? Should Arab nations pay the UK and Ireland for the people kidnapped by the Barbary Pirates?
The Ottomans were still keeping slaves until the early 1900s, long after the western European powers had ended the practice, why aren’t we seeing calls for reperations from Turkey to Slavic nations?
we go as for back as needed to achieve a somewhat just society.
Let’s take your example of the Jews in Egypt (other than the fact that the source for Jewish slavery in Egypt is just religious texts without any archeological evidence ever found): is there some great opportunity divide between an Egyptian and an Israeli? no, so we obviously don’t need to worry about that.
or for the Ottoman-Slavic question: do Slavic peoples have less opportunity than those of modern day Turkey? no, so we don’t need to worry about that.
and yes, Italians (and many other parts of Europe) do send different types of aid to Africa for these reasons
Do Black people in the USA have massive opportunity differences in comparison to the WASP population? yes, they do, thus it is right to conduct these reparations. You may not be the only people to have committed slavery, but you sure still wear it proudly, and you are still a deeply systemically racist nation.
TLDR: it’s not about revenge, but righting wrongs.
none of these targets Americans, you can make the exact same arguments for England and their colonial holdings (the thing OP was referring to), to Russia and the rest of the Soviet, or Russia and the rest of Russia, etc…
This isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. Nobody’s saying “if we let the gays marry the next thing that will happen is people will want to marry animals!”
What people are saying is, okay if this is being done in the interest of fairness, who else needs considered, and is it practical to consider them? Are we ever actually going to be able to achieve something close to fair?
In the US a great example in this discussion is native Americans. Do they get more or less for having their entire society destroyed, land confiscated, being driven on death marches to far away land, repeated treaty violations, decimated by smallpox, and many of the other tournaments?
I have native American, German, and Scottish ancestors that never owned a slave. I don’t have “African”, Irish, or “Asian” ancestors.
Do I get a check, do I get excluded, or do I pay for the sins of someone else’s forefathers? And then because… despite all the struggles my ancestors endured themselves, I lived in a country that’s trying to reconcile past sins of slavery they had nothing to do with directly (and hopefully were opposed to)?
Fact of the matter is, native americans suffered horribly, they just don’t exist in any kind of numbers to make a stink about it, and many of them bred into the white population.
We’re never going to get to “even” and we seriously need to consider if more unfair government wealth distribution is the solution to previous unfair government wealth distribution.
Hell I’m a full on Democrat and I strongly believe this will only make race relations worse. Like by a factor of 100 if they did that here. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and there’s no way sufficient time money and resources will be spent to actually make anything resembling fair happen here or in the US; you can’t do that when you’re trying to score political points.
Governments should be trying to help people from where they are now, not trying to reverse history and retroactively remedy history spread across hundreds of years.
Well considering the last slave (coerced labor) was freed in the 1940s, it’s still extremely recent. These are people’s grandparents and great-grandparents. The velocity of money is very real.
There were families that made Bezos-class money at the height of slavery, and those families’ descendants are still rich today.
At the very least, these families shouldn’t be anonymously rich, they should be infamously rich, notoriously so. Even if a truth-and-reconciliation process is ‘too much’, let us at least have the truth out, and loud.
Alarm clock apps that require a subscription. Basically any app that doesn’t require backend server infrastructure to function should not be subscription based.
Oh wow. I can’t imagine living so far from family. 30 mins was my maximum amount of drive time away from my family. I ended up getting a house that’s 20 mins away.
I would say my first reaction to hearing my parent is dead/severely wounded would not be to look at home how the dog is doing but how my parent is doing or grieve.
After maybe 2 or 3 days I would maybe have a clear enough mind to think about a pet, that’s not even mine.
US is essentially just a compilation of 50 small countries that joined together to create a large military. Most laws are up to the states to enforce and create. Some states do a better job than others.
That’s obviously the most logical reason. For decades, no, centuries there have been legions of parents selling their children in the hotspot of Mississippi. These outlaws found the loophole and it was only stopped because of a 2009 law! Fucking braindead.
It’s called knowing the first thing about the history and present day of the worst state in the Union.
Fear mongering is what GOP politicians from Mississippi and other deep red states use to retain absolute power in spite of having done a consistently piss poor job for over half a century.
In the US the federal government has very little power to regulate individual’s actions that power is typically reserved for the states. The federal government deals with international and interstate matters.
So the federal government can make laws against selling people across state borders but they can not make laws against selling people within state borders. Because that power belongs to the states.
I’m sorry to undermine an important point, but how do you make a spoiler on here? I’m using Jerboa. Yours is the first spoiler tag I’ve seen. I was under the impression you couldn’t do it on Lemmy.
You can still get wage-free labor in the United States today, but it can only come from criminals now.
The 13th amendment says:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Ponzi schemes, especially the insurance companies. They really are a Ponzi scheme.
Think about it, they promise you things asking for money, then when you need their services they decide where you go, how much they will pay (leaving the rest for you to pay as a deductible), then they turn around and increase your costs for their services, that they fight tooth and nail not to pay anything.
I argue insurance in and of itself is no ponzi scheme. Working together is the basis of all civilisation. Trying to make a business out of a social service however … that’s rife for abuse, yes.
Depends on how you define a Ponzi scheme. Personally I define it as pay us money in return for a service, then run with the money or come up with ways to deny that service, once again keeping the money or as much as possible by telling businesses how much they can charge for their services.
If I ran my own company, I would be damned if someone is going to dictate my prices to help their bottom line.
IMHO, that is what has caused health care cost to be untenable for someone who cannot afford health insurance or makes like $3 too much to qualify for the likes of Medicaid.
Oh my god, thank you so much! I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees it. They get money, they invest that money in pension funds, and then they try not to pay that back. The only things stopping it from being one legally are some slight changes such as the investment part and the part where they pay back to people in need, not people at the top.
I work in the insurance industry and I 100% agree with this.
The only time it’s wise to take out an insurance policy is when
A) It’s legally required (though this is sometimes due to lobbying by the insurance companies themselves)
B) When you absolutely will not be able to actually pay for a potential, but necessary expense by yourself (cancer treatments and stuff like that)
So Health Insurance, Auto Insurance (even if your car is cheap and self-insurable, the car you hit may not be), Home-owners insurance and stuff like that are necessary and generally a good financial bet, even if they are crooked af.
Any “micro-insurances” though? All total scams. Travel insurance, phone insurance (or “Extended Warranties”), Apple Care, all that kind of shit is 100% going to cost you more money to have than it’ll save you - unless you get really really lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it). You’d be better off spending what you’d pay on those insurance premiums on a hand of blackjack, I’ll bet the odds would be slightly more in your favor that way
Ugh my parents both insist on travel insurance. What if you get sick?? Idk, I’ll cancel the stuff I can and take the loss on what I can’t, for all the travel I’ve done the amount of times that has happened does not even remotely come close to how much I would have paid each time for travel insurance.
No mom, I’m not going to insure our 2 night stay at the Hilton in (mid sized city). I’m sure it’s going to be fine.
Last time I did was for a very very expensive flight across an ocean, just because it was like, 15 dollars on a 2000 flight for a few people. Fine, but everything else we took the risk. (And we did not use it)
Travel insurance is especially terrible, because a lot of the time it’s a pretty substantial premium, and actually filing a claim on it is a HUGE PITA.
I worked for a traveler insurance company before, and we denied most claims that came in. People would buy insurance on a $100 concert ticket, paying a $10 premium for the insurance, then when they’d go to file the claim, we’d require a doctors note, so now they also have to cough up a $20 copay and a whole afternoon just to get a note saying “yup, this person is sick”. And that’s just one of the many ways people got fleeced. During COVID, a lot of travel insurance claims got denied because illnesses resulting from pandemics aren’t covered in some policies as well
not surprised at all, I’ve found it’s just better to learn the cancellation policy of your items. Most hotels are full refund if they know >48 hours, and if less usually you’ll at least get points/credit back which for me I’ll absolutely use next time. Not worth the premium and the hassle to get cash back if I only find out less than 48 hours ahead of time
nothing conspiracy theorist about it at all. If anyone gives you sideways looks when you mention that insurance is a scam, just point out the very simple and undeniable fact that insurance companies are (very) profitable. That means, by definition that the average customer pays more in premiums than they get in payouts, and not just a bit more, a lot more, as that profit they make is after they pay their thousands of employees, award multi-million dollar bonuses to their executives, pay for their bigass skyscrapers, and all that other shit. If insurance was a “fair” deal, they’d be losing money from the administration costs
Travel insurance is my big one. Why would you not get that? That seems like such a stupid risk not to get that.
Like if I get hit by a car in the middle of nowhere and they got to fly my home because the medical care there sucks. That’s going to cost an absolute fortune. Even having to send my dead body home will cost my family loads.
Why would you not get that? That seems like such a stupid risk not to get that.
Pretty much for all the reasons I said in my comment - you’ll almost certainly spend more on premiums for travel insurance than you’ll ever claim (this is true of all insurance) and the expenses incurred by self-insuring are generally manageable. Even in the two situations you refer to, we’re “only” talking about costs of a few thousand, and both of those are highly unlikely events that most people go their whole lives not dealing with. you’re much better off putting the money you’d spend on that travel insurance into an emergency fund to cover those kinds of unexpected expenses.
Insurance is only a good financial call if you risk completely bankrupting yourself by not having insurance, otherwise you’re just trading potential lump sum costs for small continuous costs, and the premiums will generally always wind up being more than what you’re saving (because if they weren’t, then the Insurance companies wouldn’t be making so much money).
That being said, it’s your money, if you’d rather accept that you’re paying more over a lifetime on travel insurance than you’re saving just to have the peace of mind that you won’t have to dip into savings for any incident that happens before or during the trip (assuming your incident doesn’t fall under one of the many carefully crafted exclusions that the insurance companies add to their policies to prevent paying out, which it probably will), then by all means, buy it - but if you’re buying it because you think it’s the financially savy move, and you have at least a few grand in your bank account for emergencies, then you’re kidding yourself.
I just read a news article this week about a young Australian man on vacation in Indonesia who got in an accident. His family now face costs of around $350,000 because his insurance didn’t cover riding motorized scooters.
I think travel insurance is generally wise to have, and to be aware of what you are covered for. This is an example both of the potential costs and how if you don’t read your policy carefully they will fuck you over.
you’ll almost certainly spend more on premiums for travel insurance than you’ll ever claim (this is true of all insurance)
Yes I agree but it’s about how you value risk. Losing $100 on travel insurance is better than losing $1,000,000 on hospital bills. The risk is different obviously but I’m not worried about $100 for peace of mind. I have even gone to war zones were my insurance was invalid but I had it in safer places because it’s all about risk.
Even in the two situations you refer to, we’re “only” talking about costs of a few thousand, and both of those are highly unlikely events
That’s just where your wrong and there is no point continuing this discussion. You don’t think people have to pay a fortune for medical cover when you have no insurance? Sure some countries might cover that and their might be mutual care agreements. But not having insurance in a place that won’t pay your hospital bills. That’s madness. Your argument works if you artificially make up costs sure.
I have personally know loads of people to get in accidents when travelling, I have myself. I have only heard one person being hospitalised and getting sent home but it happens and it isn’t cheap.
I think the main point is that the policies have so many exclusions in the fine print that you are unlikely to get them to pay even if something does happen. That seems pretty scammy to me. But I guess there is something to be said for the peace of mind you get when you buy it, eh? Even if it’s unfounded.
Yup - this is exactly it. I’m entirely certain that there are people out there who have had their financial lives saved from utter ruin via vacation insurance - but I’m also certain (because I’ve witnessed it myself) that far far more people who think they should be covered wind up in deep shit because their hospitalization came from an accident, or as the result of a crime, or some other edge case that happens to be excluded by the travel insurance policy (and make no mistake, these exclusions are carefully crafted to cover as many potential cases as humanly possible while still sounds decent on paper).
And you would be entirely correct - if insurance companies acted in good faith, the reality however, is that they don’t. Your comments are already littered with replies of people giving you examples that they’ve personally experienced of carefully constructed exclusions meaning that they can’t actually claim their policy.
I have no doubt that there are people out there for whom travel insurance has saved their ass, but I know from my own experience in the industry that the far more common experience for policy holders is to wind up with the insurance company finding a reason to not pay up, and now you’re left both with the cost of the emergency, as well as the cost of the policy.
Like I said, it’s your money, and I’m certainly not going to give a shit if you keep buying travel insurance policies, hell - people buying insurance policies pay my salary (though i don’t work in travel insurance any longer)
I got travel insurance recently for a hiking trip with my wife. We had an emergency and my wife had to be airlifted out by helicopter, and we were so glad to have the travel insurance because it covers emergency evacuation up to $10,000 (and the helicopter costed around $5,000). Awesome, right?
Well… actually no. Turns out, the terms of our policy dictate we needed to call insurance first and have them organize the airlift. Since we dialed 911 and organized the helicopter ourselves, our insurance won’t cover it. I guess it’s my fault for not reading the fine print, but it feels pretty scummy from the insurance company. Even if we had read the fine print, in the moment I don’t think I would have remembered as my immediate instinct is to contact emergency services.
That’s not a Ponzi scheme. Sorry, but this misuse of the term really grinds my gears.
A Ponzi scheme is a specific scam promoted as an investment, but in reality the payouts made to early victims come from the incoming money paid by new investors.
Yes, the most egregious one that really grinds my gears is on the front page of YouTube, where it will show a shelf with YouTube shorts with an X top right. If you click it, it will hide the shelf and say “Okay, we’ll hide shorts for 30 days” which is something no body would ever mean by pressing that button and it’s such patronizing, insidious bullshit.
At least it shows the shorts of the creators that you are subbed to.
I usually only watch the one on the front page if I can recognize them in the thumbnail or it actually seems interesting and never ever scroll them.
My only gripe:
Youtubers use shorts for the short sketches instead of actual short videos
I freaking hate Shorts, and the persistence with which YouTube attempts to shove that crap down your throat is absolutely infuriating.
YouTube also recently made the thumbnails larger, which is also really bad as it makes it more difficult to see what videos are in your subscription feed (even moreso with all the shorts clogging it up).
I’ve been watching shorts lately and now EVERYTHING is about shorts. I don’t ever get the little x anymore to remove the annoying fucking shelf anymore. Why does all this shit have to suck so much.
When the original vanced got stopped, I could never get the patcher for revanced to work on my phone, and it wasn’t even clear what the issue was. just a lot of errors and glitchy youtube.
I’ve just beeing using firefox with ublock, but its not very convenient.
Yes, I’ve had a better time with it since then. I also couldn’t get it to work initially but now I’ve used it on two phones and it works fine. The trick is to use a slightly older release of the YT apk.
I’m a Reddit migrant, so I’ve been pleasantly surprised about how positive everyone is in here. I don’t doubt we’ve gotten more Reddity as awful, terrible, jackwagons like me have joined (uhm. giggle) but you guys still have an atmosphere that’s 100x better than Reddit. My only complaint are the minor details about missing features etc that I know will be resolved in time.
So… I guess that didn’t answer your question directly, but indirectly while it may have gotten more Reddity, it’s still a long way away from being Reddit. I hope that continues.
I had the impression reddit was overall less toxic compared to other social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. I always thought that it was the “community” aspect of reddit responsible for this. People want to belong to a community and are generally less toxic towards fellow community members.
Maybe I was lucky in my community selection?
That said, I’m happy to be here instead of reddit… It certainly feels a lot more welcoming!
Probably, but I’d also agree anyway that it was generally less toxic than the major social media platforms. But I’d also say Lemmy/Kbin seems substantially less toxic than even Reddit.
It absolutely depends on the communities in question. I’ve been an active member of the ‘Breath of the Wild’ sub for years and even tho there was of course still the occasional troll / bot, the sub as a whole was positively wholesome. At the same time I occasionally posted in a Pokémon-related sub of similar size, and even simple, innocent questions were mass-downvoted, insults thrown left and right for the most basic and irrelevant reasons, and they had so many scammers that they needed to keep a list of “trustworthy users” for online trades.
I will not directly link examples to avoid giving reddit free traffic, but one particularily striking example were posts made by people who didn’t like the games in question:
“I don’t really like BotW”
Topmost answer: “That’s okay. Keep in mind that BotW is very different from former Zelda games and the new formula isn’t everone’s cup of tea. If it is [XYZ] that bothers you, there are these in-game solutions to make your life easier: (listed those things) …and if you are looking for a more Zelda-esque experience, there are these games: (list with alternatives and explanations about how they’re different plus the pros and cons of those games)”
“I don’t really like Pokémon Sword/Shield”
Topmost answer: “Get fucked”
PS: Sadly that sub went down the drain in the meantime as the “wholesome” people seem to have left and what remains of the former community are the trolls, bots and jerks. It honestly saddens me a bit, but at the same time I’m glad that I jumped ship before it happened.
Zelda is a game where you help others through your courage and the kindness in your heart and save the world. Pokemon is a game where you command a small army of nonsentient creatures to fight and be injured for you so you can call yourself the best. Of course one of those games is going to have a more toxic community.
You know, that’s actually a fair point. Especially since one of them also heavily relies on online competitions against the rest of the world, where you need to be as aggressive and brutal as possible to even survive the first few rounds. That is bound to promote and reward a specific mindset over time …
Agreed. Also a Reddit migrant, and I feel like even if it’s changed here since our mini exodus (which I believe), I’m still finding it much more pleasant than Reddit.
Don’t worry, I’m sure Corpos and the RIch will find a way to get government to eminent domain your property away and give it to them under some bullshit excuse like “protecting their investment in seaside property”
Actually as the tide rises those properties will get less. They will just be bought up again from the rich people and the poor will move to the countryside.
I think it’s worth noting that Mastodon is by far the most mature. Everything else is buggy and may not always work the way you might expect but I think many are still worth using if you can put up with the quirks.
Still not sure what this is supposed to do based on the site? It’s some kind of all-in-one fediverse thing? Doesn’t help that they reference a ton of federated services that I’ve never heard of in the website
Implements ActivityPub, you can do Twitter-like messaging with it and define the maximum length of the text. The client API is the same as with Mastodon, so you can use any Mastodon app with it, or even run the Mastodon web frontend.
It is written in Elixir instead of Ruby, so it is much faster and uses less resources than Mastodon. Supports quoting and emoji reactions like Misskey does. Super easy to install.
Ya that website is totally useless if you don’t already know what Pleroma is, it explains what the fediverse is like 4 times but never explains how the app integrates with it lol
Yes and no. Yes an app exists, but it’s not official, and the app is only a wrapper for the website. It may be better to “install” the website to your home screen using the option in your browser.
If you want to check it out, it’s not on Google Play, but you can get it on F-Droid if you have it, otherwise you can install the APK directly by downloading it here.
Tbh, I kinda miss these links. Lemmy has a big discoverability issue, and part of that is that it’s impossible to link to a post or comment in an instance-agnostic way.
Links to communities would at least help to find new communities to join.
I don't think there are technically dupes. You could have multiple communities across different instances all called "gaming". But that wouldn't mean they all share the same rules and posting formats, etc.
They'd basically be like different subreddits. So you could potentially create a multireddit, but not truly merging "duplicate" communities.
Yeah, but it would be nice if there was a way to consolidate when a single person posts the same article in every iteration of gaming across the platform.
Ohhh, yeah, that is a sort of unique issue. Even then each one would have different vote and boost counts as well as unique comments sections. I think with a clever enough UI you could still work it out, though.
Yeah multicommunities please! Also when you sub to a community a smol popup appears that asks if you’d like to sub to these other communities with the same name. Of course disable in settings.
I like to browse "everything " sorted to new. I find new communities that way. And there isn’t an underlying algorithm that curated your feed according to what your viewing history is.
That’s why it’s different from r/all, there is less manipulation.
My favourite line in the whole thing is right at the end when Commander Jack Ransom (played by Jerry O’Connell) walks past the poster of Lieutenant commander Una Chin-Riley (played by Rebecca Romjin) and calls her “The hottest first officer in Starfleet history.”
kbin.life
Top