Introducing our new Stormtrooper™ AI!

I agree with the statement that you are making, but, if I may be pedantic for just a moment, the way that your example was worded is not an example of gaslighting; it is actually an example of something called "affirming the disjunct".

Wikipedia is aggressively compressed (since you can merge multiple article revisions together and build a decent dictionary to drop the size dramatically).

The example that I provided is uncompressed. Here is a notable excerpt from Wikipedia:

As of May 2015, the current version of the English Wikipedia article / template / redirect text was about 51 GB uncompressed in XML format.

Since I am only talking about the article content, and not any of the extra structure, or linking data, then it should be straightforward to imagine that it is only ~20GB in size.

Being able to go back and fix my comment or add to it, change hyperlinks, etc, is great. Knowing conversations might get derailed to fixate on why I changed something etc is not great.

As was pointed out by @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works, this may be self-limiting issue, since this sort of behavior would be quickly condemned by the court of public opinion.

It’s not just about editing out passwords or hiding what is already out there in the federation. Public internet, no taksies-backsies is beyond the point.

However, that seems to be the common counterargument in this comment section.

It’s about facilitating good communication.

Correct, but this is a subjective argument. I am of the opinion that it would improve communication by improving the quality of the post (removing things like "EDIT Grammar", etc.), and improving one's trustworthiness in the post's content.

I’d imagine the nitpicking and derailing will be more prevalent that any other use of the feature.

This is conjecture.

Why do you need to “verify” what a user changed?

This was already outlined in my post. People can change their post's content through an edit to mislead the reader.

Chilling impact / chilling effect is just a technical term for things that inhibit or discourage behaviours.

Oh, my mistake! Was this the idea that you were intending to convey?

It can take only one or two negative interactions to shut a user up and revert them to lurking. Lemmy needs people talking.

I would honestly argue that the lemmings, themselves, accomplish this already to a far greater degree 😉 -- although that could be due to the influx of redditors, I'm not sure.

This one actually isn't so bad. If a person opts out of their edit history being shown, at least this would be a sort of red flag for the reader that should trigger skepticism in the content's trustworthiness. That being said, it would still be inferior to having a mandatory edit history.

For more in depth information, I'll refer you to this Wikipedia article on digital signatures. But, the long and short of it is that I distribute a public key which would be used alongside that signature to verify if that signature was generated by my private key for the content that is contained in the given post.

content-signature:Hdv6ZJpsd8MxqdThHqSL5gs/cQ+AbxhOPdoRYYOyL8Ip4/dA6VM3oWtTvItLLO1x+I8DiS+Al7ay5e4TasdNNvrXh5cFmq7+b/L523/tJTqheCpv4tNDETp2H6FY9tJa0HmtmIv4jskdeAMrV0Rnmf1HoqMjO729mGdi1fGxLKVIszlBc4TUKtwzLOOFqBYR5zJCeRw7hbNydGnFRCcJcKfhTX/ANkRChqmCU8AR8Vnb99IMUnchWosjno/88WyoVZEpp/M06iMhw63wKsLzwfDySES3UbMAQwLOEYYtC3B8Y+ApeySAfUkssQjVy7bQUtiE7t/5eYoOTCOBQMUJpQ==

I don't. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn't modified by an admin, or any other external entity.

content-signature:GHnwqVFVDJFDAGt7Xg1oQecp04BoH+qJucdpFOblrg+YxSx8Vp7DfxEQudqcxK1+7yiOjgKvnVDCRP6oU7XTjttdl6sdMpFq9LcFHQ6OlVtjsvaSoIobck4ARimWs5vvTYMTBp6kCNYmhczFniJ52q3Blps7G1bw5q7sOf1z4rWG+CB99jb//02+x6KVjllnoiZJdVhqfa69dryG49W8QxTLvHqr20kTmAQzEpAK/kWgGL2/FLNhUYjvmVQtQAUJlXo/GJtj93AHyrApqwXEVmGSe/imIrosGgugG3UZSRGJzYd+/KwOVxsZNkTe+eMIyV8ceeouy9LcorEKJ1mq/g==

I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature

While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

freedom is a practice.

I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:

[...] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [...] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [...]

uNWFd160lwjPncmmtOMI7pnIQxbDjNaaogkRHv4troRYz5retihmjDJQuz/87YT91VYC5npys3BFwROqsqgQ7+4WAYIBob+nRktqKeu44el2IjlKjAh9OGlOMTroThnIte2FuswNR7A+jyx6uC5F4/Ryl7Fatk5tjHX91HAdpmRksqer5SYLgQzYYt9J5k28ZuyvhDSwQfWf5Ur4lF74j7+qDVH61kV7qFIfM4gJOy9vKHfP7k21+eKD9Wlv6RDFmk/Y8j/urt35zfdH5m/zGS36qo8RhIu3nap26ybFXb41SiLG0iOH+/iJLqgzALhpmLPO+6m7qGHCCdCXxws7fQ==

If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.

This is the opinion that currently I hold.

President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.

My argument isn't that of whether it's possible to make such rules, it is instead, from a point of principle, whether we should make such rules.

I would argue, with a rather high degree of confidence, that this would never occur. If it did, it would certainly indicate a complete degredation in the core functions of the government, as well as the trust that the public has in its operation -- I suspect that a revolution would be imminent. Furthermore, due its unstable nature, I would wager that it would be rather fleeting.

Paywalled.

occ files:scan --all (or something like that)

I have already done this, as was mentioned in the post.

Tried this. Still nothing.