Rather than communities being hosted by an instance, they should function like hashtags, where each instance hosts posts to that community that originate from their instance, and users viewing the community see the aggregate of all of these. Let me explain.

Currently, communities are created and hosted on a single instance, and are moderated by moderators on that instance. This is generally fine, but it has some undesirable effects:

• Multiple communities exist for the same topics on different instances, which results in fractured discussions and duplicated posts (as people cross-post the same content to each of them).
• One moderation team is responsible for all content on that community, meaning that if the moderation team is biased, they can effectively stifle discussion about certain topics.
• If an instance goes down, even temporarily, all of its communities go down with it.
• Larger instances tend to edge out similar communities on other instances, which just results in slow consolidation into e.g. lemmy.ml and lemmy.world. This, in turn, puts more strain on their servers and can have performance impact.

I'm proposing a new way of handling this:

• Rather than visiting a specific community, e.g. worldnews@lemmy.world, you could simply visit the community name, like a hashtag. This is, functionally, the same as visiting that community on your own local instance: [yourinstance]/c/worldnews
  • You'd see posts from all instances (that your instance is aware of), from their individual /worldnews communities, in a single feed.
  • If you create a new post, it would originate from your instance (which effectively would create that community on your instance, if it didn't previously exist).
  • Other users on other instances would, similarly, see your post in their feed for that "meta community".
• Moderation is handled by each instance's version of that community separately.
  • An instance's moderators have full moderation rights over all posts, but those moderator actions only apply to that instance's view of the community.
    • If a post that was posted on lemmy.ml is deleted by a moderator on e.g. lemmy.world, a user viewing the community from lemmy.ml could still see it (unless their moderators had also deleted the post).
    • If a post is deleted by moderators on the instance it was created on, it is effectively deleted for everyone, regardless of instance.
    • This applies to all moderator actions. Banning a user from a community stops them from posting to that instance's version of the community, and stops their posts from showing up to users viewing the community through that instance.
    • Instances with different worldviews and posting guidelines can co-exist; moderators can curate the view that appears to users on their instance. A user who disagreed with moderator actions could view the community via a different instance instead.
• Users could still visit the community through another instance, as we do now - in this case, [yourinstance]/c/worldnews@lemmy.world, for example.
  • In this case, you'd see lemmy.world's "view" of the community, including all of their moderator actions.

The benefit is that communities become decentralized, which is more in line with (my understanding of) the purpose of the fediverse. It stops an instance from becoming large enough to direct discussion on a topic, stops community fragmentation due to multiple versions of the community existing across multiple instances, and makes it easier for smaller communities to pop up (since discoverability is easier - you don't have to know where a community is hosted, you just need to know the community name, or be able to reasonably guess it. You don't need to know that a community for e.g. linux exists or where it is, you just need to visit [yourinstance]/c/linux and you'll see posts.

If an instance wanted to have their own personal version of a community, they could either use a different tag (e.g. world_news instead of worldnews), or, one could choose to view only local posts.

Go ahead, tear me apart and tell me why this is a terrible idea.

I really don't have a lot of background on cluster munitions; it only really came into my perception in response to the controversy over the US providing them to Ukraine. As I understand it, the controversy is because they often don't all explode reliably, and unexploded munitions can then explode months or years later when civilians are occupying the territory, making it similar to the problems caused by landmines.

In an age where things like location trackers, radio transmitters, and other such local and long-range technology to locate objects are common place, what's stopping the manufacturers of these munitions from simply putting some kind of device to facilitate tracking inside each individual explosive, to assist with detection and safe retrieval after a conflict? I get that nothing is a 100% effective solution, but it seems like it'd solve most of it.

Can someone with actual knowledge explain why this is still a problem we're having?

We can currently filter communities in our feed by 'Subscribed', 'Local' and 'All', but I'd really love a way to add communities to custom groupings, and have additional filter options based on those groupings. For example, a 'News' group that I could add all of the News-related communities to, and be able to click a filter button and see only those... or maybe the use case most people would likely use: creating groups to isolate SFW and NSFW content.

If there's a way to do this that I'm unaware of, I'd love to hear about it.