Un arrêté municipal n’a pas la possibilité de définir une sanction pécunière de type amende administrative. Séparation des pouvoirs.

Ce n’est aucunement le cas. Un maire est un administrateur public, et ses pouvoirs sont définis précisément.

Avant que l’arrêté “saute” officiellement il est déjà nul et non avenu.

Vous êtes partis si loin en oubliant l’essentiel : si législation il doit y avoir sur le sujet, et quelle que soit votre opinion là-dessus, ce n’est pas dans les pouvoirs d’une mairie. Ce genre de décision ne peut être prise qu’au niveau de l’État. Vous semblez croire qu’un maire est un mini-duc qui peut éditer ses mini-lois locales…

Le référendum n’a aucune valeur légale, c’est juste un élément de propagande. Au final c’est quand même juste un arrêté municipal, et les arrêtés municipaux ne peuvent pas décider de tout.

Je suis étonnée qu’on en débatte comme si c’était raisonnable qu’un maire pense avoir à ce point un droit de contrôle sur ce que font ses habitant·es. Ce n’est pas de ses prérogatives et c’est, comme souvent, un exemple de la façon dont les arrêtés municipaux sont pris sans aucune considération pour la loi (qui encadre ce que les arrêtés municipaux peuvent, ou ne peuvent pas, faire).

Peu de surprise que ça émane d’un maire LR. Prochaine étape, il vous dira quel compte suivre, quels réseaux utiliser, quels livres acheter ?

I personally think it’s a very bad idea and politics will catch up on you eventually. But whatever floats your boat.

Quick, everyone go to the new hype Nazi bar! (Well, not so hype anymore)

Sure, that’s the reason. I believe that.

If instances don’t want to federate with some or all other instances, that is their choice, and that’s on purpose. Some just want to have smaller communities, stronger moderation, and sometimes be entirely private.

If you’re looking for instances that federate with most, you should choose yours accordingly. And I think you won’t have an issue with that, because most popular instances chose to go this route.

“You can force cooperation”. Wow. A true fighter for free software, you are. Sure, let’s use that as a new catchphrase.

(But if it was to be actually enforced on any actually decentralized network — a concept that you still have a hard time understanding, apparently — there would be forks up the ass from such an autoritative move. Just go on Reddit, that’s what you’re looking for.)

Goes to show that bitcoin bros like to spam around!

Jokes aaide: I think you don’t quite get the point. The issue is not “are there enough mods?” but really “what moderation rules do you want to enforce?”. You can’t force collaboration on instances that have different views and rules on moderation because they will disagree on key elements. Some instances are very open to all kind of content, even offensive, and will enforce close-to-no moderation; others will have a very active moderation to protect their users against hate speech, for instance. You don’t solve anything by thinking those can work together. There are separate instances for a good reason, and it’s ought to stay like that.

If they were identical they wouldn’t be separated. Everyone seems to fail to understand that the same « topic » doesn’t make automatically the same « community ». The goals and rules of instances are different.

It’s not a problem. It’s a great feature. Because there’s more and more servers enforcing a lazy moderation system and spreading a lot of hate out there. And sure, you’re free to do so. But I’m also free to rely on servers that actually protect their users, and they have a right to exist as well.

It’s always baffling to me how people go to great lengths trying to describe the utter freedom of the Fediverse (and decentralized networks as a whole) as something flawed and bad, because they’re brainless and they just think of Lemmy as “the new Reddit” (or Mastodon as “the new Twitter”).

Si j’avais touché un euro à chaque fois que Le Monde a “refactorisé” discrètement le travail de Mediapart, j’aurais pu ouvrir un Livret A.

Microsoft actually tried that during the 360 era with their “Games for Windows Live” service. You had to pay Live “Gold” in order to play online for those games, the exact same subscription required for online gaming on Xbox.

The whole service was so poorly done, so intrusive, and so un-PC, that it didn’t stick with PC gamers.

Nowadays, with quite a few PC gamers already paying for the Game Pass subscription and a rather streamlined experience for PC, I wonder if things would turn out differently somehow.