So that's about 100GB/year of text? If so, then that is, indeed, a very large amount of text being generated.
Kalcifer
joined 1 year ago
Borg good
You can still edit it.
The root shortcoming is that changing one letter gets the same flag as replacing the whole comment or adding a wall of text.
Fair point.
Over what period of time? What's the current rate of increase?
Would you mind also defining what you meant by "huge"?
It’s not something I would care about or ever use.
I think it's better to look at this not from the perspective of one's own personal gain, but the benefit that it provides to the site on the whole.
It comes with significant unresolved problems already pointed out
Would you mind stating the exact "unresolved problems" that you are referring to?
it mostly just seems like you want it for reasons of idle curiosity or paranoia.
I believe that the feature's existence provides the passive benefit of increasing the average quality of posted content.
Most importantly, if a lemmy dev already said no, and you aren’t willing to do the work, then it’s dead
What's bothersome about that is that the dev didn't just say that they didn't want to work on it, they closed it. I completely understand if the dev doesn't want to work on it personally, but closing it gives one the feeling that future discussion on the topic is not wanted -- not to mention that it also greatly reduces its visibility.
opening a thread about it isn’t a helpful way of fixing that.
No, but I wanted to have more discussion that what was had on GitHub. I figured that posting about it here would yield a much larger audience, and, perhaps, less biased opinions.
It adds nothing to the discussion.
It wouldn't technically add content (unless you count the peristant old versions as added content), it provides passive improvement to quality.
Also, I’m hosting my own instance (for others as well) and the (unoptimized) storage use is already huge.
What portion of that is text, and what portion of that is media?
No need to pay for something I don’t really care about.
Do note that, presumably, were this feature to be implemented, it would likely be able to be disabled on the side of the instance -- meaning that your instance wouldn't store any of the edits itself.
Wikipedia is aggressively compressed (since you can merge multiple article revisions together and build a decent dictionary to drop the size dramatically).
The example that I provided is uncompressed. Here is a notable excerpt from Wikipedia:
As of May 2015, the current version of the English Wikipedia article / template / redirect text was about 51 GB uncompressed in XML format.
Since I am only talking about the article content, and not any of the extra structure, or linking data, then it should be straightforward to imagine that it is only ~20GB in size.
Being able to go back and fix my comment or add to it, change hyperlinks, etc, is great. Knowing conversations might get derailed to fixate on why I changed something etc is not great.
As was pointed out by @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works, this may be self-limiting issue, since this sort of behavior would be quickly condemned by the court of public opinion.
It’s not just about editing out passwords or hiding what is already out there in the federation. Public internet, no taksies-backsies is beyond the point.
However, that seems to be the common counterargument in this comment section.
It’s about facilitating good communication.
Correct, but this is a subjective argument. I am of the opinion that it would improve communication by improving the quality of the post (removing things like "EDIT Grammar", etc.), and improving one's trustworthiness in the post's content.
I’d imagine the nitpicking and derailing will be more prevalent that any other use of the feature.
This is conjecture.
Why do you need to “verify” what a user changed?
This was already outlined in my post. People can change their post's content through an edit to mislead the reader.
Chilling impact / chilling effect is just a technical term for things that inhibit or discourage behaviours.
Oh, my mistake! Was this the idea that you were intending to convey?
It can take only one or two negative interactions to shut a user up and revert them to lurking. Lemmy needs people talking.
I would honestly argue that the lemmings, themselves, accomplish this already to a far greater degree 😉 -- although that could be due to the influx of redditors, I'm not sure.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day.
Freedom is accomplished through practice 😉.
If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it.
You don't think that fighting for one's freedom is righteous?
But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
What do you mean? I don't understand how this statement ties in with what you were previously talking about.
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc.
I would argue that malicious compliance would be one's best form of resistance in the case where one is not subject to absolute despotism. There is also something called "Jury Nullification" which can be a boon for making these sorts of changes.
I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
If disobedience carried no risk, then we would not live in a civil society.
99% of users won't use the feature
Which further proves that it's not likely to cause many hosting costs.
This is a good point -- I missed that.
invites users to review people's edit history
They already do this with comment history.
What do you mean by this? You can't see comment history currently.
If you don't want people digging in to your edit history, don't make controversial edits.
Hm, well, an edit is only controversial if you know that it was edited in a controversial manner. You wouldn't look in the edit history because you knew that it was controversial, you would look in the edit history and find that it was controversial. Unless, you meant to say "controversial posts" to which I would say that I disagree with that opinion.
People being jerks for calling out typo fixes likely will result in downvotes, thus discouraged by the community. Look at grammar police, they're frequently downvoted to the point where they're not very common (though more common than they should be).
This is a fair point.
I see it as a place to discuss news and politics, not a place to "socialize."
This is a rather one-sided/dubious statement. For one talking about news and politics could be deemed as socializing, plus a forum is just a medium of discourse in the general sense -- it doesn't really have any explicitly defined topic unless stated by an individual communtiy.
It depends what was exactly meant by the original comment. If it was that 99% of users wont edit their comments, then yes it won't add much extra hosting cost, but if was that 99% of people won't access it, then you are right in that it makes no difference.