If the community is purely about news, sure. Most aren't though, and I think in that case, the poster should always be the first ones to strike discussion.
would kill the community
I'm of the opposite belief. I think some communities stay dead bc there's just one person constantly posting articles with zero input. I avoid these "zombie" communities. Regular dead communities are more enticing to post in for me.
start one, and unsubscribe from the communities you don't like.
This would create even more fracturing, which is already a big problem here.
Basically all articles end up commented on anyways.
No. Small communities do not get this feature, and it is my belief that they stay small because (a) no one is willing to make the first comment and (b) the feed is just full of new dead posts, or "zombie" posts.
At least that's in my case. I get this urked feeling and leave the community whenever the feed feels "zombie". Not the case when it's just dead.
but I want the community to not die.
I understand this, but
I don't have anything meaningful to say
Could this not be true for everyone else? Someone needs to start the discussion. Otherwise it will just stay dead. Imo it's better to either leave it or come up with at least something.
That's referring to the fediverse.
Pedantic, but this is a rant opinion post so ┐( ˘_˘)┌
Well, you can just not follow the communities you don't like, and let them be.
I'd have to leave basically all of them, lol. I'm arguing against standard practice.
Most just see it as a get rich quick scheme.
It sucks, I don't see how it could ever get past this.
I thought Monero solves this issue, with a level of effort large enough that it's almost impossible to crack.
“Contrary to standard cosmological theories where the accelerated expansion of the universe is attributed to dark energy, our findings indicate that this expansion is due to the weakening forces of nature, not dark energy,” he continued.
So both dark matter and dark energy don't exist?
@actual_patience
@programming.dev