Not only is the noise ratio low, this seems like a good lesson in “encyclopedias are not primary sources nor arbiters nor authorities on information.” Yes, people use Wikipedia that way anyway. No, baking in an even lower trust system does not seem like it’s actually a fix to any of Wikipedia’s problems.

Written content can contain pii, but it’s rarer. Written content isn’t, by default, pii, but if someone tells anything reasonably pii the entire text can be consisted pii even when anonymized.

The point is that their identity as a scientist will be one small contributing factor compared to who they are as a person, making it difficult to really even answer without just going to each individual person and asking them. Hey plumbers, why do you use Facebook? Hey accountants, why are you in Instagram?

I can answer it!

Scientists aren’t a monolith and are an extremely diverse group of people associated together largely by profession alone, and within a single lab of scientists all working on the same project one could expect to fund each one using different social media if at all.

Gdpr is not that easy, and the right to be forgotten is certainly more complicated than people are making it out to be. Public facing forum posts have even less protection, for fairly obvious reasons. Now if Lemmy instances were sharing your account information and not deleting that, it gets murkier.

Lemmy should probably keep gdpr and ccpa in mind but public facing forum comments are early qualified under the right to be forgotten unless they meet certain criteria.

The key word there bring frivolous, and like 99% of frivolous lawsuits get tossed out rapidly and/or result in a ton of wasted money by the filer. Slapp only really work when you have a lot of money already to justify it.

I think that instead, quotes from the article itself should be posted as the text. Leave any further editorializing to a comment.

This will encourage engaging with the actual content of the article, rather than just making some extremely biased, misinformed, or otherwise improper, tldr, and gives a better opportunity for interacting with the editorializing directly via comments.

People said that about reddit, I don’t think Lemmy is anywhere near being too complex for the average user. More that social medias generally favor simplicity because simplicity is easy to control, modify, and generally nudge from a developer side trying to guarantee a very specific use case that generates money, rather than just naturally occurring social systems.

Let’s be real, humans have been dealing with social networks far more complex, systems more complex, for almost all of human history. The sheer volume of people, no, but the actual processes of interaction, yes.

I would say, if in theory a social media achieved a small community, informative and positive culture which avoided spreading misinformation or cultivating harmful stereotypes of those they disagree with via the mechanisms of that social media, that it should be more standardized and more widely accepted. Largely because that is just more healthy in general. Not that Lemmy will necessarily be that in practice in the long run.