This is all rather concerning, though I’m not fully convinced. Granted, the archive link and struggle sessions link are quite long, so it’ll take some time for me to read through it all.

I have to question how supporting an independent Hong Kong is pro-imperialism though. Isn’t China assuming control a form of imperialism, or do I not fully understand what imperialism actually is?

Also, I don’t really have an opinion on the Uyghur situation, as I’m not well informed on the matter. From what I’ve read of that Jacobin article, comparing what China is doing to America’s “War on Terror” seems somewhat applicable, I guess? Not directly, since it’s not a literal war, but I can’t imagine there being much support from Leftists for America doing something similar; that is, rounding up Muslims in America and re-educating them with “Western “culture”” (whatever that means).

I hope this doesn’t come across badly, I unfortunately did not have (and am still having issues with finding) good Leftist sources to read a non American-dogmatic version of events for what occurred in Hong Kong and with the Uyghurs. So any information you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

What’s wrong with Jacobin?

There’s also Aether, which is a P2P reddit-like program, which will have a form of democracy for community mods when a community gets large enough.

In regards to moderation, some form of democracy should be implemented for each community mod team. Of course, this should be built in a way as to prevent, or at the very least limit, voter fraud and hostile takeovers.

There could be limits set on the protocol level, like only allowing users to vote in elections on their homeserver (or allowing the homeserver admins to choose which servers’ users they’ll allow?). Each community could also vote (or the mods internally vote) on the requirements for voting, like: amount of time subscribed, activity level within the community, age of account, etc.

Perhaps each community could even choose the type of election/voting system. They could be for a set term, until they get voted out, or a constant approval vote where they lose their position if they piss off enough people.

Hell, if you wanted to go even further, an impeachment process could be included. Or maybe every mod action is publically available to be appealed by the community if need be and if enough actions are overturned they lose their position.

I’m really into governance structures, so people might not care for something like this, but I’ve spent some time writing out ideas for a Reddit alternative with heavy emphasis on governance, both community and site wide. Mainly for the purposes of preventing authoritarian behavior by mods and site admins alike. It’d be pretty cool to see Lemmy adopt things like this.