I use one pod per app more or less. The reverse-proxy conf depends a bit on the specific app so that depends, but it will probably work for most by sharing a network and exposing the ports in the pods

Don’t use the kube stuff. That’s entirely seperate from Quadlets and some sort of Kubernetes compatibility.

If you can get someone else with a local account to open the community they can hand it over to your slrpnk.net account afterwards. Most of the many previous bugs around moderation functions have been fixed in 0.19.8/9.

However there are two main issues remaining:

1. You will rarely get any reports as those do not properly federate right now. A fix is supposedly in the works for the next Lemmy release, but this has been promised a few times with limited success.

2. If de-federated instances differ then you can end up with impossible to moderate situations. For example hexbear.net is blocked by slrpnk.net but it is not blocked by lemmy.dbzer0.com. This means people from that instance can post to the community, but these post are entirely invisible to you as a moderator with an account from slrpnk.net.

My recommendation is that you do not do remote moderation alone. At best you can help someone with an account on that remote instance to moderate a remote community.

I don’t believe that a report will federate to a remote instance that doesn’t meet one of those criteria, even if it hosts a moderator for the community, but I’m not certain about this one.

That’s pretty much the issue with remote reports. In practical terms that means the vast majority of the reports are not delivered to the person moderating. For example I moderate /c/europe@feddit.org and I rarely get any reports from that community on my slrpnk.net account, and it is a popular community with lots of reports according to my co-moderator with a feddit.org account.

Apparently there is a fix in the works for Lemmy 0.20/1.0 but that release is still a while out according to the devs.

Woodpecker is more mature and I can control access better since I am not the only one using my Forgejo. But I think at some point the built in ones might reach feature parity.

Experimented with selfhosting a Woodpecker CI as a complement to my Forgejo.

Works quite nicely, I just need to set up a native ARM64 agent as the overhead of cross compilation on x86_64 is quite big.

XMPP also has a working ActivityPub bridge. But I think at some point these bridges are a bridge too far.

Software like Friendica or Hubzilla that can speak multiple protocols including AP are clearly part of the Fediverse, but things that need 3rd party bridges IMHO are not, as the creators clearly do no intend them to be part of it. Otherwise Xhitter would be also part of the Fediverse as bridges exist(ed in the past at least).

They mean turning Wendelstein-X into a real prototype fusion reactor, right? RIGHT?

Sadly no, because this is bullshit like the entire platform that the conservatives ran on.

Words have a meaning you know? “Discoverability” comes from “discover”, which discribes an act of looking for something and not having something pushed into your field of view with minimal own effort.

Communities want more discoverability to get more members that post relevant things. This does the opposite and actively hides the specific community from potential posters while increasing the noise in the comments.

I think people really need to have some serious thought about the consequences of what they are asking for. These feeds, similar to algorithmic recommendations of commercial social media, increase engagement (a dubious metric, primarily interesting for advertisers) but not discoverability.

No, the problem is that people that have no relation to the community start commenting and getting into arguments.

Say for example a /c/anarchism gets added to a “politics” feed. And suddenly you have a bunch of people that have no clue (or even a pretty false idea) commenting on posts in the anarchism community because they think it is just another politics posts. Then others that are actual members of that community start getting into largely off-topic arguments with these commenters and when moderators step in you shortly after get complaints from people about being “censored for their totally valid opinion about politics” and so on.

Yes having that option more easily accessible would be much apprechated.

Once a community is known to an instance it is available via the search feature. Thus this really doesn’t improve discoverability at all assuming the person adding it to the feed is already using the instance.

What it however does is moving the conscious choice of looking for and joining a community to an opaque follow feed button that makes someone subscribe to a lot of communities they know nothing about other than that someone else thought they somehow fit to a single word tag (and it is worse than hashtags on Mastodon as it is not the person making the post that adds them, but a totally unrelated 3rd party).

Yes the All feed has the same problem, but posts need to be significantly more popular for them to even register in the All feed. Thus most small communities currently fly under the radar of the All feed, and if they do get a popular post it nearly always becomes a moderation nightmare.

Hashtags on Mastodon have a similar problem, having given rise to the universally dreaded “reply guy” issue.

I think most people on Lemmy haven’t really thought this through and what the implications of such a feature are once it becomes widely used.

And no, the one that is doing the opt-in is the person creating the feed without asking the community that is being forcefully opted-in. Giving them the option to veto that is better than having them realize that they have been opted into something they don’t agree with by being flooded with trolls and off-topic comments.

If I don’t misunderstand then you can only add communities to these feeds that are already known to your instance, thus I don’t really see how this solves the federated discoverability issues which are ultimately due to instances not being aware of each other at all.

This will reduce the discourse quality significantly as it will bring in more drive-by comments from people not subscribed to the specific communities in question.

I hope there will be some way for communities to opt-out from this or maybe better require them to opt-in.

The title already gives it away 😜

There was a Vietnamese instance for a short while, but it seems like they got scared off with how restrictive their governments internet policy is.

There is (was?) an Indian one… but run by hindutva (extreme right-wing) nationalists, so I think we can skip that one.

There is also one that is located in Japan, but no idea if it can be described as an instance for Japan.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dean-spade-solidarity-not-charity