Here's a handy site to check your federation status: https://phiresky.github.io/lemmy-federation-state/site?domain=social.packetloss.gg

It looks like all the sites are lagging, which can sometimes mean there is an issue. What's the specs of the server? Can you try restarting it and seeing if that helps?

There are issues for servers hosted in places like Australia because of the latency in communicating with .world due to how big it is and how much data it sends because of this.

Most other social networks allow users to select whether they are reporting a violation of community rules, or site rules as whole.

Why not take this approach to simplify it then?

Asking the user to specify who they think should receive a report feels like it will add confusion (not to mention is subjective anyway), and could create delays in responding to important stuff if the user picks the "wrong" option. If a user picks the mod option on csam report then it might get missed by an admin? At least the option between "this community" or "site rules" is a bit clearer.

This is to prevent cases of admins accidentally preventing mods from moderating according to their own community rules

As an admin I should be able to respond to a mod report on a community if I'm there first and its urgent, i.e. csam. This is a policy/discussion point between mods and admins on any given instance and shouldn't be enforced in the software. Separation for clarity's sake is fine, I even encourage that as I don't tend to touch a report for a community anyway as it stands, but I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I'm just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity.

Admins can still always explicitly take over communities by making themselves mods, in this way, they are able to handle mod reports for any abandoned communities, etc

Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here. Continuing with Admins being able to mark reports resolved just makes sense.

Alternatively, we could make reporting even more granular. It would be possible to allow users to select only a specific instances admins as the intended report audience, for example.

No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you've ever had the misfortune of using Meta's report functionality you'll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their "granularity".

Simplicity of use and getting a report to someone who can do something about it quickly should always be the priority, adding options and functionality should be secondary and support this. If you don't want to be stepping on moderators toes, make that clear in your guidelines and processes.

I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.

To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.

It is :)

Just can't be beaten for price/quality at this scale

This incorrectly lists Lemmy.zip as federated - we've been defederated for months.

I dont think this site is accurate.

The tories have been villains since 2010. Plenty of Russian money still floating around there I'm sure.

They should probably add a % measure to that to show active users as a % of total users to give a more balanced look at active instances

Have only seen the clip of the LMG employee saying what they said from GN's video, but seems quite an over-reaction from GN and the other company IMO. Definitely some form of baiting for views, even if parts of the video are valid.

c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com rule 3:

Don’t request or link to specific pirated titles

Literally wasn't even an issue. Its a bad take by power tripping admins spurred on by a troll. All-round terrible decision.

Also comparing a Lemmy community to Pirate Bay is a gross exaggeration.

The communities discuss piracy, not host the content. They are two different things.

The user that requested it was a troll account create dhours before. The same user then went on to create a transphobic community and post hate. Not the sort of person the admins should be knee jerking to.

They're not dodgy links.

There is a dedicated site which will be announced on the date - creator is adding a way for kbin users to authenticate and join in.

I feel like i go around in circles saying this - there are literally hundreds of servers. If servers had caps, i.e. user caps and community caps, then people would be forced to spread out, rather than relying on two or three big servers. Otherwise we just have a central server, which is Reddit with extra steps.