I'm personally of the mind that we should be imagining a world where all 3 of these solutions are at play. 1 is absolutely the most important, and Admins should be taking an active role here where possible (particularly as it relates to dead community cleanup). I personally think they are the missing element needed to negotiate these sorts of consolidations. 2 and 3 on the other hand are pretty simple features and even if Lemmy never takes it on, I think it's reasonable that any one of the new fediverse link aggregators could take this up. The only other thing I'll say is multi-communities absolutely must be sharable. Ideally, it should even be possible to link multi-communities with the "!" syntax or similar.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I really don't think this is a major problem for Lemmy. Users won't find the proper community and leave Lemmy, or what's the idea here?

I don't think there is even activity enough to worry about those things yet.

[–] 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don’t think there is even activity enough to worry about those things yet.

This problem is part of why there's not enough activity. Any activity that happens in the threadiverse is spread across multiple, duplicate communities. That makes it harder for communities to build up active userbases and makes users themselves less likely to post or comment.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago

In theory yes, but everyone posts to Lemmy.world or Lemmy.ml, so I haven't seen this becoming a practical problem myself.

load more comments