Fediverse

But nobody will read a charter, just as nobody reads privacy policies. Do you?

OP seems to be suggesting a simplified "label" system, based on easy-to-grasp criteria. To me this looks like a much more sensible solution than yet more opaque blocks of TOS.

For example, there could be colored badges. A green one might mean non-profit, and red might mean "careful, anything goes here", or whatever.

A possible inspiration: the Creative Commons codes (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, etc).

IMO it is crucial to keep all this as simple as possible. It should not be necessary to spend 10 minutes parsing a block of text to understand the essentials about a community.

I'm very anti one charter - my intention here is to propose the idea of charters as a way for communities to sort of balance each other out, solve each other's problems and avoid reinventing each other's wheels.

Well-thought-out policies will be copied and forked by other new instances, and that will create consensus communities of instances that are at least on the same page when it comes to how a site is supposed to work.

Yeah, pretty much this, but with some mechanism - literally at an icon level - to indicate to users (lemmings, lemurs, lemurians?), who aren't necessarily keyed into inter-instance politics, and just want to see their memes, that "this instance follows the No-Nazis charter, which I like, and the rest of the charter members agree. Cool."

$14.80

I’ll gladly defederate from that.

~~That already happened. For example, we have mozilla !firefox@fedia.io~~

edit: I think it's a mistake to throw mozilla into in the same bag with the other corpos. The whole truth is a bit more complicated than makes money = bad. In this case I'm happy to take the L

Good question, something for folks writing the charter (whoever they might be) to take into consideration, and hash out.

Off the top of my head, there are types of for-profit orgs, like B Corps, that could be included. There are non-profit orgs, like religious institutions, that could be excluded.

(Edit: point is that it's something for more and better minds to sort out, and adjust over time)

It is actually exciting to see and participate in how things develop.

Same, to go from years of lurking on Reddit to feeling compelled to post here is an indication to me that something cool and different is trying to happen.

True, I specifically called out the Lemmyverse, versus the Fediverse, however. In this moment, the Lemmyverse feels like a crucible of "now what?" where there's room for something like this.

To clarify, in my head, I couldn't, nor wouldn't imagine all Lemmy instances to adopt a single charter, but to have the concept floating around in the space - take it or leave it.

[disclaimer: I don't know how to talk about this stuff without sounding like a Pollyanna, but I'm actually a "hope for the best prepare for the worst" sort of cynic]

You could have one charter developed by a group of instances that are committed to being inclusive, diverse spaces.

1. The charter org would need to have a good reputation of member instances following the spirit (or letter, if that's their thing) of whatever (laws, guides, mission statement, whatever)
2. Adopting the charter, a staying a member instance indicates to people looking for safe, inclusive, diverse spaces that "hey, let's give this one a shot"
3. If a member acts in bad faith, the charter org can do what they will to uphold their reputation. If the charter org itself has shenanigans, they lose that reputation (and members)

I'm thinking about this like a Syndicalist/Confederalist - administrative organizations (interest groups) form as necessary, and dissolve when their function has run its course.