Natanael

Without content addressing that's almost impossible

A lot of this doesn't work easily on the activitypub model, because accounts and posts and communities live on their host instances, and every interaction has to be relayed to them and updates have to be retrieved from them.

While you can set up mirrors with arbitrary additional moderation that can be seen from everywhere, you can't support submission of content from instances blocked by the host instance.

The bluesky model with content addressing can create that experience by allowing the creation of "roaming" communities where posts and comments can be collected by multiple hosts who each can apply their own filtering. Since posts are signed and comment trees use hashes of the parent you can't manipulate others' posts undetected.

Bluesky already has 3rd party moderation label services and 3rd party feed generators for its Twitter-like service, and a fork replicating a forum model could have 3rd party forum views and 3rd party moderation applied similarly.

There's some things which Mastodon does you can copy, like the question about what your home instance is

https://slrpnk.net/comment/9042474

You must use your home instance as a proxy.

If you find a post elsewhere you have to take its URL and put it into your own instance's search function, and it will recognize it as a post on another lemmy instance and retrieve it for you.

You can also use search from your instance to go looking for things outside your instance which it already knows about.

Mastodon has made this easier by asking what your home instance is when you try to interact with a post on their domain without being logged in, and then it redirects you to a view of that same post from your own instance. Lemmy could do the same.

Define "new security measures"

But it has to be clearly presented. Consumer law and defamation law has different requirements on disclaimers

In Canada there was a company using an LLM chatbot who had to uphold a claim the bot had made to one of their customers. So there's precedence for forcing companies to take responsibility for what their LLMs says (at least if they're presenting it as trustworthy and representative)

Performance cores versus efficiency cores?

A lot of those exploit EU rules on open markets to dodge proper local licensing (I'm also from Sweden)

I don't think that's new, you just need to throw in a personal subscription key in the URL

That's not really the right line to draw.

Using it satirically to point out hypocrisy is one thing, and that's fair (but you need to make it obvious). If people don't get it's a particular person's actions you're mocking then you're doing it wrong

There's a million different ways "third party" can go. Sometimes they take the job seriously and have enough mandate to get it done, sometimes they don't. The latter is especially risky and problematic when they're hired by the party accused.

The only way to ensure you get the former is to let somebody not involved in the accusations make the choice of which auditors to hire