.world was already bad, doesn’t stop me from being disappointed when one of the instances I liked more gets worse.

So all moderation is wrong?

No.

You can achieve essentially the same effect via blocking. Bypassing defederation instead requires using a different instance.

You might be thinking about .ml instances. dbzer0 has been one of the most open instances. I’m just disappointed at the current trend.

It isn’t, I have active accounts on a handful of instances atm.

or the authority

Authority is exactly the problem. Who would’ve thought that somebody with an account on an anarchist instance has problems with other people telling them what they can and can’t do?

Shocking, I know.

“people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.

You’re right, that would be idiotic. Good thing I didn’t define authoritarian that way, and no, it is not a meaningless word, you can (in fact) look it up in a dictionary which describes the meaning fairly well.

Voting to block a domain and having that domain blocked isn’t comparable to electing an authoritarian leader.

Nobody has said that? What it does is remove the choice from each individual, which is authoritarian, even if done via majority vote. There was nothing stopping those who wanted the domain blocked to do that themselves.

Ah yes because nothing authoritarian was ever implemented through a vote…

Personally, I voted against on my db0 account, the top voted comments explain pretty thoroughly why.

It’s sad to see dbzer0 slowly creeping towards authoritarianism. This is exactly the kind of reason I couoldn’t entertain making it my primary instance unfortunately.

To clarify, I was referring to visibility of deer and items. The situations you mention here limit the vision of the driver as a whole, and then the visibility of things no longer matters. Where I live we also have lots of deer, but accidents involving deer & other bigger wildlife is uncommon enough to make the local news (and you’ll almost never see such roadkill along the roads). During the season I’ll see animals several times per week, sometimes having to stop more than once on a single drive.

Nastiest run in I’ve had was where a group of deer had gotten in between the wildlife fencing on a stretch of highway

It looks like wet pavement.

That’s the part that makes black ice nasty. The temps can be slightly above freezing with wet spots everywhere. Then suddenly one small spot has slightly lower temperature. Bam, black ice.

I agree that drivers have a much larger responsibility, barring reckless behaviour. What I disagree with is driving being inherently dangerous. It’s a question of system design. As you mentioned Wisconsin, I assume you live in the US. My condolences.

This is simply incorrect.

• Deer are very visible at night due to their reflective eyes, coat (which is not black) and movement. They can be spotted at >150m distance with high beams on. The reason they (and other wildlife) are dangerous is because they can jump into the road at the last moment from behind cover.

• Stationary items are usually a very low threat since the driver has a long time to spot them. Bigger ones (such as a tree, bin or car) are also inherently more visible. Also, the worst case is damage to the vehicle.

• Adding on, it is usually mandatory for broken down/stopped vehicles to have their hazards on and put out a warning triangle ahead if they are in the road.

As an intelligent being, you are ultimately responsible for your own continued safety. The good news however is that most drivers try to avoid hitting pedestrians.

If you spend a lot of time around traffic at night, a simple reflector tag does wonders to increase your visibility and lets you take more space.

Yup, still rocking my oneplus 5t from 2018 and will keep using that bad boy until it literally breaks.

Thanks for a well-written reply. Here’s some quick responses:

1… as mentioned the primary costs here come from increased crime which is hard to document. In high trust societies (which social welfare countries usually are) this has a disproportionately negative impact on the economy. Also, in several Scandinavian countries everyone has a right to emergency healthcare, regardless of their immigration status.

2… I believe you’re correct when it comes to countries with less social welfare such as the US, however, this isn’t the case in countries with robust social welfare systems. As recently as 2023 Denmark assessed the net contribution of migrants and their descendants on the public finances and published the results. The sum total effect of migrants was negative (-19B DKK). Per capita the average Dane had an impact of (22k DKK) per year and the average migrant (-21k DKK). Some migrant/migrant descendant subgroups were better or worse than others (best 52k DKK, worst -109k).

3… Sure, I assume this accounts for other societal costs such as law enforcement and crime?

4… See the response to #2. The taxes don’t cover the costs.

If you have a society with robust social welfare systems - education, healthcare, social security, pensions, childcare, housing etc. etc., mass immigration becomes a massive problem.

Everything is taken care of via taxes, and those taxes come from a productive working population. Slow population growth (whether from births or immigration) allows social institutions to expand at a matching rate over the decades.

Rapid population increases from migration can overwhelm the systems in place and put society in a spot where it is no longer able to maintain them.

Furthermore, when it comes to illegal immigrants, it gets doubly bad. They can’t hold down a legal job (at least in my country, and thus not pay taxes either), which inevitably pushes them towards crime or illegal jobs which brings a whole host of other issues.