Wikipedia is aggressively compressed (since you can merge multiple article revisions together and build a decent dictionary to drop the size dramatically).

The example that I provided is uncompressed. Here is a notable excerpt from Wikipedia:

As of May 2015, the current version of the English Wikipedia article / template / redirect text was about 51 GB uncompressed in XML format.

Since I am only talking about the article content, and not any of the extra structure, or linking data, then it should be straightforward to imagine that it is only ~20GB in size.

Being able to go back and fix my comment or add to it, change hyperlinks, etc, is great. Knowing conversations might get derailed to fixate on why I changed something etc is not great.

As was pointed out by @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works, this may be self-limiting issue, since this sort of behavior would be quickly condemned by the court of public opinion.

It’s not just about editing out passwords or hiding what is already out there in the federation. Public internet, no taksies-backsies is beyond the point.

However, that seems to be the common counterargument in this comment section.

It’s about facilitating good communication.

Correct, but this is a subjective argument. I am of the opinion that it would improve communication by improving the quality of the post (removing things like "EDIT Grammar", etc.), and improving one's trustworthiness in the post's content.

I’d imagine the nitpicking and derailing will be more prevalent that any other use of the feature.

This is conjecture.

Why do you need to “verify” what a user changed?

This was already outlined in my post. People can change their post's content through an edit to mislead the reader.

Chilling impact / chilling effect is just a technical term for things that inhibit or discourage behaviours.

Oh, my mistake! Was this the idea that you were intending to convey?

It can take only one or two negative interactions to shut a user up and revert them to lurking. Lemmy needs people talking.

I would honestly argue that the lemmings, themselves, accomplish this already to a far greater degree 😉 -- although that could be due to the influx of redditors, I'm not sure.

I don't. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn't modified by an admin, or any other external entity.

content-signature:GHnwqVFVDJFDAGt7Xg1oQecp04BoH+qJucdpFOblrg+YxSx8Vp7DfxEQudqcxK1+7yiOjgKvnVDCRP6oU7XTjttdl6sdMpFq9LcFHQ6OlVtjsvaSoIobck4ARimWs5vvTYMTBp6kCNYmhczFniJ52q3Blps7G1bw5q7sOf1z4rWG+CB99jb//02+x6KVjllnoiZJdVhqfa69dryG49W8QxTLvHqr20kTmAQzEpAK/kWgGL2/FLNhUYjvmVQtQAUJlXo/GJtj93AHyrApqwXEVmGSe/imIrosGgugG3UZSRGJzYd+/KwOVxsZNkTe+eMIyV8ceeouy9LcorEKJ1mq/g==

I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature

While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

freedom is a practice.

I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:

[...] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [...] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]

uNWFd160lwjPncmmtOMI7pnIQxbDjNaaogkRHv4troRYz5retihmjDJQuz/87YT91VYC5npys3BFwROqsqgQ7+4WAYIBob+nRktqKeu44el2IjlKjAh9OGlOMTroThnIte2FuswNR7A+jyx6uC5F4/Ryl7Fatk5tjHX91HAdpmRksqer5SYLgQzYYt9J5k28ZuyvhDSwQfWf5Ur4lF74j7+qDVH61kV7qFIfM4gJOy9vKHfP7k21+eKD9Wlv6RDFmk/Y8j/urt35zfdH5m/zGS36qo8RhIu3nap26ybFXb41SiLG0iOH+/iJLqgzALhpmLPO+6m7qGHCCdCXxws7fQ==

Correct, people shouldn't go around shooting people that they don't like, but that isn't what happened here -- Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.

bUDnRZ0kjJqfm8GENhao9dovO6CydCHTMb8Fz1TYwUic8xy6bD8bTg6VkagwSSwVhltuqEdYkZnT/02TOcKdOJ9VKvL//3scGs/TlSSPZ8LU1SvaoYyb/czu4qi25f6hTh2S8iMkQ7e3bbvlKvnACnsFMZL3afsWICGwXXSZxk5VodS18XZ1m3fUJLxdjMju+M2U0WuXyMVNCP7LI2wQI2gs2SH/LoFZPQLiRvsv6o6ryQyWIp2MlBWbT9oj/wAycuWmPnn3oFTt3xUm7LdSX8kFEArCy44Zv0zyNn1Utyt7AX+KJT3XWgdqTDuC4cBIHOOUhuEzOOoQ89iXs312kA==

I certainly could link my server into play as well just to keep an always online device in the mix

Yep! That should work perfectly fine.

I think lemm.ee has no NSFW allowed

Lemm.ee allows NSFW.

EDIT (2023-10-01T07:00Z): Unless you meant that you can't upload NSFW to lemm.ee, then you are correct -- you cannot -- that is, aside from the fact that all image uploads are currently banned on lemm.ee due to CSAM concerns.

Every constitutional right has limits.

Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states "Shall not be infringed". That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of "Arms", and "bear".

There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.

Don't forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:

[...] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]

I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle -- to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it's very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it's private ownership would violate the NAP, as it's very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.

It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states "[...] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". One needs to have a precise definition for "bear", and "Arms". Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot "bear" a nuclear warhead. Perhaps "Arms" are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.

For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.

Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different

Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.

some people’s freedoms infringe on others.

Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.

I would argue, with a rather high degree of confidence, that this would never occur. If it did, it would certainly indicate a complete degredation in the core functions of the government, as well as the trust that the public has in its operation -- I suspect that a revolution would be imminent. Furthermore, due its unstable nature, I would wager that it would be rather fleeting.

Paywalled.