I tried mutualaidhub.org - and found another one that is about 45 miles from me so I went to their site to check it out. From what I can tell, it's nothing more than a hyper-localized version of gofundme.com. It seems most of these things are just links to facebook groups. I don't think these things are as organized or as helpful as your original post made them out to be.
Also, for the record, I'm not actually looking for assistance. I've honestly never heard of this thing until your post and just am trying to learn more about them, what they do, who and how they help, and maybe find something I could contribute. These things do not seem like a very viable alternative to traditional social services.
Sure, for the top 5 lemmy instances, that's kind of how it's working. But for all other lemmy instances, when you load their communities and filter by "all" instead of by "local", you are only seeing the communities that specific instance has become aware of (by virtue of that instance's members manually subscribing to foreign communities on foreign instances).
Since the very nature (by design) of lemmy is to be fragmented, it's almost a foregone conclusion that users of most instances will never even become aware of that the most popular foreign communities are for the topics they are interested in, without resorting to 3rd party search tools and community trackers/locators.
The very design of lemmy actually actively promotes fragmentation...fragmentation not just among the user base, but among communities of identical topics as well across different instances.
The only way it would be 'solved organically' as you say, is when fragmentation is minimized by just having a few super-massive instances -- but that seems to be counter to the fundamental ideals of lemmy itself.
Personally, I think this is a huge usability problem that needs some better technical solutions.
I only heard about them recently too so I might give an incomplete answer but
If you only recently heard about them, then why wouldn't you logically conclude that a plausible answer to your original question might be that more people don't join them because people haven't heard of them?
This seems like a no brainer so what am I missing?
People haven't heard of them.
Also, using the mutualaid.wiki resource you cited - I decided to look up what was available in my state and the only couple of groups seem to focus on Covid-19 related things....leaving me even more confused about what you're talking about.
The problem is when it's a community type that significantly benefits from synergy. Specifically - those types of communities that provide more of a Q&A type culture rather than just a broadcast type culture.
Take a software development question. If I post that question onto a small community, I probably won't get an answer. If I'm a member of a dozen small communities covering the same topic, I might have to spam that question across a dozen identical-topic communities in order to get the answer. If those dozen identical-topic communities were just one organized community with 12x the membership, that singular community would be orders of magnitude more effective...due to the synergy.
If it's trained on previous community interaction, it's just going to automatically tell people (in the rudest way possible) their question is a duplicate and kill the thread for each and every new post.
To take it a step further, the end site that causes the ad to load should also be jointly liable. They are the entity that makes the partnership with the ad network, they are the one benefitting, and they are the one making ads a requirement to use their site. It's the end site that pushes the requirement for the user to see ads to use their site, and so they should inherit some of the responsibility for ensuring those ads are not harmful.
if you force me to view ads to use your site, then you should be forced to vouche for the integrity of those ads.
These rules imply, but do not acrually require, that posts must provide a link to an authoratitive source. It is possible to interpret those new rules such that sources are optional and that the only time some of those requirements come into play is if a source was optionally included.
I think there should be an explicit requirement that all posts include a link to a source...followed by all those other requiremeents.
Glad somebody mentioned that this disparity is very largely and collectively self inflicted. It's not necessarily because they are stupid but because their various unproductive hatreds are so easily exploited.
Like any kind of contest, finding rules violations is hard and not foolproof. It's like sports that forbid using steroids - competitors do regularly take those substances while training, then quit taking them for competition and go uncaught. Competitors who are discovered later to have been violating rules are stripped of titles.
That said, I don't think it's a very controversial concept that a beauty pageant shouldn't be a contest about who could afford the best surgeons. Well - as I said earlier I think beauty pageants are absurd to begin with, but if they have to exist I don't think it should be a contest between surgeons.
The only recent removed post from this community related to the UAP hearings was an hour ago and the modlog shows exactly what was removed and why it was removed: because it failed to provide a link to the direct news article.
The difference is that when the robot reads that book, it maintains a verbatim copy of that book as part of it's training material indefinitely and can reference and re-reference that material infinitely. That is not how it works when a human reads a book.
The 'copy' that the AI retains indefinitely is a verbatim copy of the original work, and the entire point of "copyright" is to control how and where copies are used.
Yes, there are 'fair use' exceptions to copyright. I don't think you realize it, but your argument is less about whether this violates copyright (it absolutely does under the textbook definition) and more about whether there should be a fair-use exemption for AIs; you seem to think yes, I would disagree.
I'd also argue the AI example qualifies as it as 'derivative work' based on the original, which STILL would require honoring copyright laws and compensating the creators of the original works. Basically, before reading the book it was just "AI". After reading the book it has become "AI + book1", a derivative work, and on and on and on.
I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying "no surgical modifications"... because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic... so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.
What I hate most about a lot of series is that they come up with a good beginning and a decent middle, but no end. And so if it gets popular enough they just try to coast on the decent midddle indefinitely until loyal viewers get bored and the writing becomes monotonous, millking the life out of it. So many good shows devolve into this that it's hard for me to want to invest my time into any new series.
I think mini-series is the better format where they have a defined beginning, middle, end from the start. This is essentially thd packaged format of a movie, just longer.
Since I don't associate LGBTQ+ with child-grooming, that notion never occurred to me. But now that you mention it, and knowing the current sad state of the current political climate, that point sounds entirely plausible. Thank you for pointing that out.
gosh it isn’t “narcissist” to not “check the latest couple dozen posts
"I just discovered this thing, and since it's new to me I immediately conclude that no one else has seen it either because the horizon of my reality extends no farther than the diameter of my own head"...is absolutely narcissist.
The opposite of narcissism is considering that other people exist, and that other people might have found it and posted it first, and to assume they have until you do some minimum amount of diligence to find out. That minimum amount of diligence is just checking for recent posts on the same topic - it's not rocket science - it's just having the basic minimum amount of social-awareness to consider there are other people in that community who may have already posted it.
Hard to know the true motives of the blahaj admin - could be they felt this was the only way to protect their community from a perceived evil, could be they were just offended that the LemmyNSFW admin had the audacity to stand their ground on principle, could be they personally objected to nsfw content and this was as plausible a reason as any to act on the desire to defederate. I see they are still federated with a few other much smaller porn/nsfw instances.
I tried mutualaidhub.org - and found another one that is about 45 miles from me so I went to their site to check it out. From what I can tell, it's nothing more than a hyper-localized version of gofundme.com. It seems most of these things are just links to facebook groups. I don't think these things are as organized or as helpful as your original post made them out to be.
Also, for the record, I'm not actually looking for assistance. I've honestly never heard of this thing until your post and just am trying to learn more about them, what they do, who and how they help, and maybe find something I could contribute. These things do not seem like a very viable alternative to traditional social services.