It adds nothing to the discussion.

It wouldn't technically add content (unless you count the peristant old versions as added content), it provides passive improvement to quality.

Also, I’m hosting my own instance (for others as well) and the (unoptimized) storage use is already huge.

What portion of that is text, and what portion of that is media?

No need to pay for something I don’t really care about.

Do note that, presumably, were this feature to be implemented, it would likely be able to be disabled on the side of the instance -- meaning that your instance wouldn't store any of the edits itself.

99% of users won't use the feature

Which further proves that it's not likely to cause many hosting costs.

This is a good point -- I missed that.

invites users to review people's edit history

They already do this with comment history.

What do you mean by this? You can't see comment history currently.

If you don't want people digging in to your edit history, don't make controversial edits.

Hm, well, an edit is only controversial if you know that it was edited in a controversial manner. You wouldn't look in the edit history because you knew that it was controversial, you would look in the edit history and find that it was controversial. Unless, you meant to say "controversial posts" to which I would say that I disagree with that opinion.

People being jerks for calling out typo fixes likely will result in downvotes, thus discouraged by the community. Look at grammar police, they're frequently downvoted to the point where they're not very common (though more common than they should be).

This is a fair point.

I see it as a place to discuss news and politics, not a place to "socialize."

This is a rather one-sided/dubious statement. For one talking about news and politics could be deemed as socializing, plus a forum is just a medium of discourse in the general sense -- it doesn't really have any explicitly defined topic unless stated by an individual communtiy.

Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life.

It entirely depends on context.

youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior

For one, YouTube isn't directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.

even if it means repealling section 250

Do you mean Section 230...?

On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok.

That is a rather reductive statement -- you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.

content-signature:dD+9B0nz63HWVwijeZIDB4gx0Ac++yPYtxsZJAd2m54y8qUwqFBgmQpjYkX5x8Xg/ERu81hD8Ar01Kmx06y+g/lznsz1YP6Hixn1qwK+0ydI4rONqDgWE33kcccF1tzBND93DpQDvgkkTPgrRq9cvakW42YgS8AJkrVgpGGkbMQmAD+1WosMncwtZRb3iObhjgf6qq7idc3wqpjsLsxvK9i476EK+9hygKwWwLwL7vAvX++igd8G0XARr7xeBA7oUcmc89OsF2CE9LEf4FUEsW3b9TMv57CFGu0WYpivqglJTKg/6F4VCKm9u/l7FT8E83MDqgtPHjx6CMvydWjPag==

Do note that this isn't an exclusive statement; a knife is also extremely deadly.

content-signature:SZvzGdmNHaRH7zTy1xJeSZp30zK/eCLiV+707z3BzZsDQ9rlW/2MgYJBsDgqndz51uKiovW3o3teh1NfzvtbN6n5BFtOSTkIYRazhkkA39WVI7rIikrWVtWvkHkexrdD1JGGJhLnbHrqMfnDfYbGIJbMLGaQ3Va6zSXQGxra1S+oE5sc9ENrOyIk62qpPHJ1MHEb4c7YK+CpVNHe9eZaYIEs8jfipU5vI3ICba3NaqnBj1g3VuJmJUGOGExlZoSi2froXRE4eqNAiSpl41zLfT9OMVJHXnZRUOdySRte8lWfIAkPWt7fxHA5+wTDogxzCNwn4CcQh3DgDyakocV8Fg==

Hm, I'm not sure how practical this is. If one must defend themself, would it not be best to always be sure that one has the absolute best means of successfully doing so? I would argue that carrying a firearm increases these odds far more than carrying pepper spray.

Pkr4gZz8OcH+N59ulney/B0zujS5vwLPawRI3io+8XhRumTMIu18/YlBE78Vu4eZpVHvQsNREGoMkkifDySYSSL7yjWE2KO4IKIxPUxQp2uyn2YFAjeX9xVBexuNrg/pL3X7oHhuGXUwy5QCHn7S6H/yXH7q7R0gpvpn1DPfkZYBmw62iMmcSss1lpxxSS5zhyroAjY5dVbCBmzfFUOEkjUi5I2k3MmxpfCTZlvTZvLEJil6lSwum+1H8Q5WDL1HpkuceyOgWAe4ATiB1Yay2056kIQiwrXbLO3EPzX9kW4GZAyYPABGZcjIYM4WlWzrD6wj5blsGFIT00gXckUMVQ==

I don't understand your point. Are stating that if the victim didn't have a gun -- meaning that the shooting didn't happen -- then the perpetrator wouldn't be continuing this behaviour?

content-signature:ZXco0T3+z6ff9K0rbQCt+9w2lDEe4GHy9QuxOgIiJqKWfcGoazURsZea+8i/5DrTIHihOUN4GEY9HlHfzoEQCGLqZaby4yj+t0yUbP08HVgwPi1mV19bbieDKMJeXhNkpDwgqjc8rDcnyMgaPhlAY/W+nS6xWgIcrTMrf9H5LbhtZqIwHvo4kFgUz87mrt21L8rlOpvbiodZrrLx/1mHGXd3cdJJP92W1Z3x7t4E7NjKgstCnyCXtILMpejJkQH4cEPv1pdlHRQdjOrG32ZmyFWWn+LruZW+Xj4Vx5ueu87UupLpCPbTD5FWMGX/HTfBxR5XQs0oRYO8Eh1q8WY2Tg==

In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn't have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn't be able to use a gun in self-defence.

It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.

You state "ended in a fight" as if that implies that the total damage imparted on both parties would be less overall. You completely miss the fact that physical violence can quite easily end fatally.

At any rate, wouldn't a victim defending themself successfully, efficiently, and likely without bodily harm to themself be preferential to the possibility of a violent and bloody physical beating with odds likely not in the victim's favor?

content-signature:BQVt7fAQqGvqjdNGUrvFp8iqrLRo8CmbObtXC5hFcYjFf60yg37xh7iyO8+vL4e2+pB5orcuBTuGgk1LMwFlyoDWKLb72FTczTCpRCwI6RoqF6YS1EOOli37Bi2Sod2Za/kjTaP6gijyrKUshxlhXQuiKPDkhGzpVtdKwgLlyziqBJzo3WQ0rIHKh/WWC0fmO6GQySYJQd6KVgDmrhzvIg0JXT7OpPPYM5QjnA+J14PXCqawJPmxmHbOF53MoV8QH8jszAt+ywzdRxI5eeM9aKifkX2+P8MUswT23ql95BEeG1egRAraue4yJ3OjaqeMUNFOPdDTGTguVSDjO1gctg==

But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

I am an advocate of the use of one's voice over the use of violence.

It doesn’t work for almost anyone

You don't believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?

My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to “ensure” the competency of the candidate.

Every time a liberal gets a head cold the republicans start screaming that they’re not physically capable to hold office anymore, but Mitch McConnell can have a stroke on live tv in the middle of a debate and they’re ready to give him another year [...]

As much as people make fun of when people say this, this really is a “both sides” problem. [...]

You quite evidently agreed that there is a problem with incompetence, as the previous user pointed out.

While the community suffers the aggragate, the individual is still not individually powerless.