The one that I remember best was restricting eating food outside of the cafeteria. Previously it had been allowed to eat outside (the school had a patio area out where kids would wait for the busses, right outside the cafeteria), but there’d been issues with people leaving trash and things out there. The options on the ballot as I remember them were to continue to allow it with no change, to allow it but to implement strict punishments for anyone caught leaving trash around, or to just ban it entirely, and surprisingly ‘Ban it’ ended up winning, but it was really close. There was a group of students really pushing hard for that; they made posters with pictures of garbage and whatnot outside on the patio area and posted them all around, and got enough support to make it happen.

The student council got to decide the items that went on the ballot and the choices (probably with some faculty pressure for certain things, I imagine), so it was all student-led initiatives, which was neat.

Where I grew up, the schools all the way down to elementary school would hold votes to decide some school policies. Things like dress codes and rules governing hallway use, minor stuff, but stuff students care about and that affected us on a daily basis, and whatever won the vote became policy for that semester. We had lines and ballots and everything… The schools were the local voting places, so they had the official voting booths and everything from real elections. Was a great introduction to the process. We’d even get students canvassing in favor of certain policies beforehand if there was something particularly controversial on the ballot.

I don’t think there was much that will hurt Harris from it. She performed very well.

She was articulate, well-spoken, performed well unscripted, and next to Trump she looked like she had her shit very together.

You seem very passionate about this issue, which is great, but you also seem very bad at communicating about it, because even after reading two full paragraphs here, I still only have a vague idea of what exactly you’re lobbying for. Can you just link us to something succinct and printed explaining it?

Long term, you could impact the trajectory of the next few centuries in substantial ways and lessen the coming dark age

With a budget of $1,000,000? That seems very ambitious at best.

and the idea of some cop having to cut it open and go through it because you called it in is sort of funny.

“Yeah, officers, uh… I definitely saw a body, at the bottom of the landfill… If you don’t find it right away, just keep looking, it’s definitely there.”

This post feels a little like bait, but that said:

To me, this is not even a question. It doesn’t feel great to say, but the only correct response is to choose Pathway 2. There’s a lot of things at stake in this election but one of the things on the chopping block if the GOP wins is trans rights. We’ve seen what they do when they have full control (look at Florida - that’s their vision for the whole country); securing a win for them just to maintain a moral high ground on this one issue will only make things worse for trans people. Trans rights being left “in a vulnerable position” is far better than trans rights being eliminated completely. That’s not even taking into account any of the other problems this would cause.

Anyone choosing Pathway 1 is not thinking through the ramifications of their choice. That said, it’s a stupid premise for a discussion, for exactly the above issue. For there to be an interesting moral dilemma, there has to be a dilemma, and there’s only one here if you’re not thinking about it past the surface.

To be clear this is purely in response to a hypothetical and I’m not in any way suggesting actually taking that course of action in reality. I in no way believe there’s enough single-issue swing voters for the democratic party being pro-trans-rights to make a lick of difference in the actual outcome.

I also exploited the living shit out of my high school’s fast connection and a friend’s Zip drive.

My school had a T1, too, but I didn’t have a zip drive, and MP3s were too big for floppies. However, old cracked games very often came in segmented zips that were floppy sized. I’d bring home games 20 or 30 disks at a time (or as many as I thought I could without drawing attention in the computer lab) over the course of a week or more.

I can’t pause it, it’s multiplayer!

-or-

If you pick up the phone, I have to start downloading this MP3 I’ve been trying to get for half an hour all over again!

I’ve definitely gotten angry about a situation while on the phone with a customer service rep, but not with the rep themself. I make it a point any time I’m audibly angry when on the phone to state that I’m angry at the company, not at the person I’m speaking with, and that I understand that it’s not their fault. It seems to help a lot; I used to work in customer service and I sure appreciated it when people made that distinction to me. It’s okay to be upset, just don’t take it out on a CSR.

“Increasing rate of decline” might be more technically correct, but we all knew what you meant. :)

There’s not much point to a 3 hour work day if you have work 3 different jobs

Not that I’m advocating for it, but… Working 3 jobs @ 15 hours a week each would mean you’d be a lot more resilient against layoffs and would be able to quit any of those jobs at the drop of a hat if things got shitty (knowing you’d only be losing 1/3 of your income, rather than 100% of it). It would represent a solid shift of power into the hands of the workers.

They can’t really make the argument that you won’t have the formula to reference in the future when you need it…

I mentioned democratic decision-making around defederation but it’s likely other changes will be needed as well.

Be the change you want to see in the world. You don’t have to code in an integrated solution; all you’d have to do is set up an online poll, listing all of the other instances up for consideration (such a list can be pretty easily obtained - for example from https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list ), run a new poll on regular intervals, say, every 2 months, and let anyone who is interested vote. Then, you update the defederation list based on the results of the poll.

However, I think you’ll quickly run into the other problems I outlined which, unfortunately, can’t really be changed. You could require everyone who’s participating in the voting to also be contributing time or money to run the server, except that then you’re operating a plutocracy, not a democracy, so most likely, you’ll need to be giving up your time and money to make your desired server administration a reality.

I’m not sure why you’re giving a history lesson when I already acknowledged that point in the comment you are replying to.

It’s because, despite claiming to have acknowledged the problem, you’re still making such an incredible false equivalency - comparing joining a new Lemmy instance to moving out of an authoritarian country - that you either completely misunderstand what you’re talking about, or you’re arguing in bad faith.

Sure, I theoretically could create my own instance, but then I would have the same problem as current instance admins, even those who are sympathetic to these ideas, as I suspect Lemmy.world and my own are. That there is no structure within Lemmy to enable collective decisions to be made or executed, and I would need to build them from scratch.

You’d have full control over your instance, and could, if you built up a community, use any online voting method you wanted - of which there are plenty - to poll your userbase and gather their opinions.

However, ultimately, you’d be the one paying for the instance, and doing the work to set it up and keep it updated and running. What would you do if you attracted a userbase that had views that were completely counter to your own? What if you attracted the alt-right crowd, and what got voted into place was all hate-speech, nazi rhetoric, and intolerance? (I assume you disagree with these things…) Would you continue paying for and hosting the instance, just because that’s what was democratically decided, even though it’s no longer an instance that you want to participate in? Could anyone really fault you for not wanting to do that?

A better method might be for you to make clear your own opinions - either via a post explaining them, or via a pre-defined federation / defederation plan - and let people join your instance who agreed with those decisions. Which, incidentally, is how most instances currently operate.

One could also simply move to another country if desired.

That’s nowhere near as easy for the majority of people - especially those in authoritarian countries - as you’re making it out to be.

North Korean defectors are North Korean people who left North Korea to become citizens in a new country. In North Korea, it is against the law to leave North Korea without permission. North Koreans are also not allowed to change their own citizenship, so anyone born a North Korean must also die a North Korean. The punishment for leaving North Korea without permission is extremely harsh. People who are caught are usually sent a prison camp or put to death in public. Like many other crimes in North Korea, illegally leaving the country may not only punish the accused, but also his or her family up to three generations.

The fact that there I can choose which authoritarian system I want to be under means little when they are all quite similar. I don’t know of any instances that have such democratic governance. They are all run by their admins as they see fit. It would be like choosing if I want to live in North Korea or Nazi Germany. Sure, they might be different in some ways, but I don’t have a real voice in decisions either way.

Anyone can start an instance. Make your own, and federate with whomever you want. Nobody’s stopping you.

So, you are right that admins imposing defederation unilaterally is an authoritarian action in line with things the North Korea or other repressive governments have done, though obviously far less severe due to the lack of violent enforcement behind it.

What? It’s nothing like that at all. Your instance isn’t a country; you aren’t stuck there. You can go wherever you want. You can read content on multiple instances.

It’s more akin to CNN deciding not to run a story that Newsmax is covering. You can have more than one source for your news.

I think you have a point here, although I think the issue is less with defederation itself, which is an important tool to manage conflict between instances, but rather with the lack of democratic governance in instances themselves.

Instances are run by individuals, who in turn have the power to run those instances as they see fit. If you dislike how a particular instance is being run, move to a different one, it’s as simple as that.

Nobody’s being censored. Anyone can go to lemmygrad and read their content. They’re not even being deplatformed - nobody’s preventing them from posting anything their instance allows on that instance. It’s closer to curation than censorship… instances are free to curate the content they host. If you don’t like the curation of a given instance, just move to a different one.

Anecdotally, when I was a kid, we had an electrical issue wherein a short or something was causing wires to slowly melt through their jacket, inside the wall. It was triggering smoke detectors, but we couldn’t see or smell anything. Fire department came out and found it, but if we’d ignored it, it almost definitely would have been a huge house fire eventually. Definitely second this advice. It doesn’t cost anything to have them come look.

We’re getting some really mixed signals from you here…