multiple operating systems, I’m not so sure but I can’t imagine that it’s impossible

The keyword is virtualization.

??? Highly unclear what exactly you are imagining.

And yet, the Internet also created the free culture movement. There has long been a vocal movement on the Internet for making copyright less restrictive. I have long been sympathetic to such; copying is not theft…

So I don’t find that outrageous in isolation, though I do find it hypocritical because Microsoft is otherwise very much not a company in favor of less restrictive copyright, certainly not as far as its own source code is concerned.

Wait, has that become open source again in recent releases? I remember it not being for a while, but the repo currently says Apache 2.0? Anyone know more about it?

OK, I wasn’t familiar with that term; TIL. Again, it’s not terminology I would personally have used; calling it a “fascist creed” over that still sounds like an exaggeration.

“Heritage is duty” refers to the heritage of computing, not of human beings. Completely non-outrageous in context.

“Command is service”, ok, that explains why Omarchy isn’t a democracy. I think many other FOSS projects aren’t either, so I don’t see anything outrageous in that either.

And you may of course disagree with their opinion on “Code-of-Conduct struggle sessions and identity-overload nonsense” (not words I would have used). Many completely well-meaning people hold different opinions on those topics.

So, how would your ideal social media platform decide what to show to the user in what priority?

I use Mastodon with a chronological feed and it works very well for me. I check it every few hours or even minutes during waking hours (depending on how bored I am) and get a huge share of my news that way. Most of my activity here on Lemmy is posting articles I discover through that exact feed.

But of course, the context here is a certain bill introduced in Australia, to which the correct response would be more similar to this article: https://www.freezenet.ca/what-the-media-didnt-tell-you-about-the-australian-off-switch-bill/

Congratulations, you’ve just managed to advertise the exact thing you oppose. I would likely have given zero attention or thought to Omarchy today if I hadn’t seen this thread.

Also, I just read that “The Omarchy Doctrine” page; if someone seriously thinks that is a “fascist creed”, then that is very interesting. About the person who thinks that. If someone could help me figure out what part of that is supposed to be outrageous or especially controversial, I’d appreciate any help!

Certainly the pictures and videos on wikipedia which you chose to consider pornographic rather than neutrally informative have a different set of qualities then what you would find in the extreme sections of porn-serving websites.

Look into the Wikimedia Commons category “pornographic videos” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Not linking to it because I’m not sure I’m allowed to do that here.

There is a middle ground. You can give partial access.

Hence why I wrote specifically about the open Internet. You are right: there are ways to give people access to only a selected part of the Internet. If parents decide to do that, fine; doesn’t have to concern any website operators, or any adults.

Nobody is banning the youth from accessing wikipedia or a library or minecraft.

Wikipedia has pornographic images and videos in it (certainly in its media archive, Wikimedia Commons, and some of them are embedded in articles).

Library: ??? Are we still talking about the Internet?

But also, if the parents decide that it’s part of growing up they can just give their kids access to porn.

Yes. Giving kids access to the open Internet is giving them access to a repository of nearly all human knowledge and endeavors, including (but not limited to) porn. If parents believe their child isn’t yet developmentally ready to be exposed to all human knowledge and endeavors, they shouldn’t be giving that child (unsupervised) access to a worldwide information system whose entire purpose is to provide access to exactly that.

Just saying that there are ways to do it right.

No, there is no way to do “censoring access to information for young people” right. That remains an entirely illegitimate goal no matter which mechanisms you invent for doing it in a privacy preserving manner.

Revenue so far: $0

and let us hope it stays that way

Haven’t heard of anything about this being done on a device level.

Then you simply missed a few news stories:

• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/08/starmer-tech-firms-ultimatum-block-explicit-images-children-phones from 3 months ago
• https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2026/09/government-look-to-impose-mandatory-age-verification-on-uk-smartphones.html from today

This is why countries need constitutions that limit what laws governments are allowed to pass. This is approximately the prototype of something governments just shouldn’t be allowed to ever do.

because these politicians know extremely little about the Internet

I started participating in online communities in the 2000s. The “social media” we had back then was web forums, organized by topics and sorted chronologically. I was young enough at the time that it is now permanently stored in my brain that that is the normal way the Internet should be like, and everything popularized since then (recommendation algorithms, the idea that we should follow people instead of topics, even the idea that websites shouldn’t be specific to certain topics) is a deviation from normalcy.

I know, rationally, that those deviations from normalcy are now the new normal (even the fediverse is “only” an attempt to improve further on that, not a move toward the Internet of the 2000s), but there is still a part of my brain that doesn’t accept this.

But I very strongly suspect that those politicians, in Australia and elsewhere, who are now trying to regulate the Internet, never posted anything to a traditional web forum, or edited a wiki, or anything like that. To them, “social media” became a thing (at all!) in around 2008 to 2010 when they created Twitter and Facebook accounts in order to communicate with their voters. (Reality check: social media has been a thing since, at the latest, the 1980s, when Usenet was invented.)

If they don’t know that the Internet is not Facebook, then it’s unsurprising when they regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, so that all that will be left is Facebook. Sad times we are living in.

I don’t know if that’s true if they don’t publish a list of that. I certainly wouldn’t know how.

Yes. I have seen comments before from obscure instances that didn’t seem to be open to the public. It wouldn’t really make much technical sense to prevent that.

this, and also: what exactly is the question?!

If the Lemmy instance isn’t public anyway, then it seems like its federation list doesn’t have to be public either, so other instance admins would have no way of knowing what such an instance federates with.

No, not at all.

After your edit, it is slightly clearer what you are asking. But this is still a matter of desktop environment more than distro.