Kalcifer

Ok, seems fine.

What is the context behind this post?

Out of curiosity, what's the output of # dmesg | grep iwlwifi?

If nothing else, I would recommend Firefox over Brave for the sole reason of the latter being yet another Chromium browser. It would be nice if we could eat away some of the browser marketshare from Google.

It could be as simple as updating a post with an outcome. You paste in a link and don’t realise until too late that you actually pasted in your personal email address. Do you then have to delete the whole thread and all it’s 1000 comments?

Hm, that's actually a very good counterexample. I hadn't considered that.

From what I understood of their comment on GitHub, it didn't seem to be that they fundamentally disliked the idea of the feature, but more that they didn't think that the community would find enough use from it to make its implementation worth it.

I don't have any comment on phpBB specifically, but I do frequently encounter the issue on old Reddit posts; however, it should be noted that the majority of the types of changes to comments that reduce the usefuleness of a post thread is their deletion, which is out of the scope of this post.

If we prioritize discussion above all else, we’ll get more discussion, but the average quality will go down

Not necessarily. One must look at the underlying reason(s) for why people aren't contributing to discussions. If it is indeed that they have nothing of quality to input, and are then incentivized to do so, then, yes, that will cause a reduction in discussion quality. But what if, instead, users capable of producing high quality content aren't contributing because they don't feel that their opinion is welcome in the discussion -- that they are afraid of being harassed, or ostracized? If these users begin to contribute more, then the quality would theoretically increase. Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be that simple in practice, but I would assume that it would have a different effect than the former example.

A lot of low quality discussion isn’t going to attract the type of users that made Reddit great

I am hesitant to agree that Reddit was consistently producing only high quality content 😜 I would argue that the more likely explanation is that there was a flat increase in volume of content being posted, and the people sorting by new had statistically more good content to choose from. Unless, of course, this is what you are referring to.

I think better moderation tools is more important than comment and post edit history

I strongly agree. Not because I personally have any use for better moderation tools, but that appears to be a major, and most likely primary complaint that many people have when they come to Lemmy from other platforms like Reddit.

Sure, but then your comment chain doesn’t make sense, or if it’s a post them you lose all the comments.

I would assume that if there was information that is being redacted, then it would happen very early on in the posts creation -- presumably before any comments are even made.

I disagree

How come? If you can censor the edit history, then you can't trust the edit history. Perhaps something that could help was if the edit that was redacted should be replaced with an entry that states something like "This edit was redacted.". In my opinion, this is inferior to having a persistent edit history, but perhaps it's a potentially functional compromise.

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.

So that's about 100GB/year of text? If so, then that is, indeed, a very large amount of text being generated.

Borg good