Have you ever considered potentially adding support for Mbin, alongside the already existing Lemmy and Piefed login/support options?

I don’t personally use Mbin, but it struck me that supporting it could be interesting from an ecosystem standpoint — essentially completing the “trinity” of major ActivityPub-based forum platforms:

• Lemmy
• Piefed
• Mbin

Even if Mbin support isn’t a priority right now, I thought it might be worth floating as a future consideration, especially for users who like to move between different Fediverse ecosystems while keeping a single client.

I was curious whether Lemmy has ever considered (or discussed) adding some form of group chat / group messaging functionality, to the already existing DM system.

One area where this could be especially useful is community mod-mail or instance admin-mail.

Right now, if a user wants to contact a community’s moderators (or instance admins), they generally have to message individuals one by one. A group chat or shared inbox system would allow:

Users to message all community moderators at once

Users to contact instance admins as a group

Mods/admins to see and respond collaboratively in a single thread

This would be similar in spirit to Reddit’s mod-mail system, but adapted to Lemmy’s federated model.

Potential benefits:

Easier and clearer communication for users

Less duplicated effort for mods/admins

Better moderation transparency and coordination

A single canonical place for moderation-related messages

From a user’s perspective, it would feel like contacting “the mods” as a single entity rather than guessing who to message

I’m curious:

Has this been discussed before?

Are there technical or federation-related reasons this might be difficult?

Would this be something better handled at the client level, or would it require core Lemmy support?

EDIT: I would have posted this to the GitHub, but GitHub never works for me, no matter what GitHub account I use, so I just decided to post it here instead.

I had a quick question and thought it might spark some discussion.

I know that Lemmy currently uses the NSFW tag/filter, which is great, but I’ve noticed that it tends to get applied to a wide variety of content—everything from mildly suggestive posts to very graphic material.

This got me wondering: has Lemmy ever considered adding more granular content filters or tags?

For example:

NSFL (Not Safe For Life) for particularly graphic or disturbing content (ie graphic war footage)

Political for sensitive Political Posts

Other potential tags for things like triggering content, or etc.

The goal would be to give users a bit more control over what they see, and help communities categorize content more accurately without overloading the single NSFW tag.

Curious if this has ever been discussed, or if there are plans to expand filtering options in the future.

I wanted to suggest a small but potentially impactful UI/UX feature for Summit related to how moderator comments are displayed.

On Lemmy, moderator comments are often visually distinguished by default, even when the moderator is just participating casually rather than speaking in an official moderation capacity.

While this transparency has value, it can sometimes unintentionally shift the tone of a discussion or discourage open conversation when a mod is simply engaging as a regular community member.

After discussing this in lemmy_support@lemmy.ml, it was pointed out that this isn’t really an API limitation, but rather a frontend/app decision — which is why I thought Summit might be a good place to experiment with it.

https://lemmy.world/post/41994121

Feature idea: An optional, opt-in distinction system for mod comments/posts, similar in spirit to Reddit’s “distinguish” feature:

• By default, moderators’ comments (and posts) appear as regular user comments/posts
• Mods can explicitly mark a comment as “mod voice” when speaking in an official capacity
• Summit could optionally provide a toggle or setting for users to:
  • Always show mod badges
  • Only show mod badges on distinguished comments
  • Or keep the current always-visible behavior

This would preserve transparency while giving communities more flexibility in how authority is visually communicated — potentially improving trust, discussion flow, and community health without changing Lemmy’s underlying model.

I recently made a feature suggestion post for the Lemmy app Summit, which I personally use.

https://lemmy.world/post/41709672

The idea was a small UI/UX enhancement:

Summit already visually distinguishes roles well:

Community Mods → green

Instance Admins → red

I suggested potentially adding a distinct colour for the Head Mod / Top Mod of a community, for example:

Instance Admin: Red

Head Mod: Yellow

Other Mods: Green

Kind of like a stoplight system (red / yellow / green).

The motivation was to make it easier at a glance to tell who ultimately runs a community, especially in larger mod teams or when reading mod comments in threads.

When I posted this to summit@lemmy.world, idunnololz@lemmy.world (the app’s creator and sole community mod) replied that they don’t think this is currently possible, because there doesn’t appear to be any notion of a “head mod” in the data returned by the API.

So my question for Lemmy devs / maintainers here:

Does Lemmy currently track any concept of a “top mod” or mod hierarchy internally?

If not, is the mod list intentionally flat by design?

Would adding an explicit “community owner” / “head mod” role be technically feasible or aligned with Lemmy’s design philosophy?

Are there federation or governance reasons this hasn’t been modeled?

Not trying to push a specific feature — I’m mostly curious about the architectural and philosophical reasoning behind how moderation roles are represented today.

On Reddit, subreddit moderators can comment as regular users by default, and only show the green MOD badge when they intentionally “distinguish” a comment as an official moderation response.

It got me thinking about Lemmy.

On Lemmy, mod comments are often immediately identifiable, even when the mod is just participating casually in a discussion rather than speaking in an official capacity. That can sometimes unintentionally shift the tone of a thread or discourage open conversation.

Do you think Lemmy should consider:

A clearer opt-in distinction system for mod comments

The ability for mods to participate by default as regular users unless explicitly marking a comment as “mod voice”

Or is the current transparency model preferable for federated communities?

Curious how other instance admins, mods, and users feel about this — especially from a trust, power-balance, and community-health perspective.

Is this something Lemmy should copy from Reddit, or is it intentionally different for good reason?

On Reddit, subreddit moderators can comment as regular users by default, and only show the green MOD badge when they intentionally “distinguish” a comment as an official moderation response.

It got me thinking about Lemmy.

On Lemmy, mod comments are often immediately identifiable, even when the mod is just participating casually in a discussion rather than speaking in an official capacity. That can sometimes unintentionally shift the tone of a thread or discourage open conversation.

Do you think Lemmy should consider:

A clearer opt-in distinction system for mod comments

The ability for mods to participate by default as regular users unless explicitly marking a comment as “mod voice”

Or is the current transparency model preferable for federated communities?

Curious how other instance admins, mods, and users feel about this — especially from a trust, power-balance, and community-health perspective.

Is this something Lemmy should copy from Reddit, or is it intentionally different for good reason?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/41807814

Before anyone says it: yes, I know about Funkwhale.

Funkwhale is great, but what I’m imagining is slightly different.

I'm not just talking about a platform where users upload their own music, but something closer to how YouTube Music actually works. Artists would upload their own music and videos, either to a shared instance or to their own instance, and listeners could then stream them across the fediverse.

Something similar to how Peertube, Lemmy, Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc work.

---

One of the big appeals of YouTube Music (at least IMO) is that since it runs off YouTube, you get an absolutely wild mix of content. Official tracks, obscure uploads, forgotten demos, weird one-off videos, hyper-niche stuff that would never exist on Spotify or Apple Music.

The closest alternative to it would be SoundCloud, but even then, SC is more underground music scene.

---

In theory, I could imagine a potential federated alternative that hooks into PeerTube. Maybe users log in with their PeerTube account or instance, and music-focused instances federate with video-focused ones.

Something like “PeerTube Music” or a dedicated ActivityPub music service that interoperates with PeerTube.

---

Obviously, you’re not going to get big-name artists right away (or maybe ever), but that’s true of basically every fediverse project at the start. You’d still get regular users, indie artists, experimental musicians, archive uploads, and all the strange internet music culture that YouTube Music accidentally preserves.

---

Curious what people here think:

Could PeerTube realistically be extended in this direction?

Is it feasible with current ActivityPub tooling?

Are there projects I’m missing that already aim for this, beyond Funkwhale?

Or does Funkwhale already cover more of this than I’m giving it credit for?

Interested to hear thoughts.

---

I would love to help with something like this, but, unfortunately, I lack the time and energy.

Before anyone says it: yes, I know about Funkwhale.

Funkwhale is great, but what I’m imagining is slightly different.

I'm not just talking about a platform where users upload their own music, but something closer to how YouTube Music actually works. Artists would upload their own music and videos, either to a shared instance or to their own instance, and listeners could then stream them across the fediverse.

Something similar to how Peertube, Lemmy, Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc work.

One of the big appeals of YouTube Music (at least IMO) is that since it runs off YouTube, you get an absolutely wild mix of content. Official tracks, obscure uploads, forgotten demos, weird one-off videos, hyper-niche stuff that would never exist on Spotify or Apple Music.

The closest alternative to it would be SoundCloud, but even then, SC is more underground music scene.

In theory, I could imagine a potential federated alternative that hooks into PeerTube. Maybe users log in with their PeerTube account or instance, and music-focused instances federate with video-focused ones.

Something like “PeerTube Music” or a dedicated ActivityPub music service that interoperates with PeerTube.

Obviously, you’re not going to get big-name artists right away (or maybe ever), but that’s true of basically every fediverse project at the start. You’d still get regular users, indie artists, experimental musicians, archive uploads, and all the strange internet music culture that YouTube Music accidentally preserves.

Curious what people here think:

Could PeerTube realistically be extended in this direction?

Is it feasible with current ActivityPub tooling?

Are there projects I’m missing that already aim for this, beyond Funkwhale?

Or does Funkwhale already cover more of this than I’m giving it credit for?

Interested to hear thoughts.

I would love to help with something like this, but, unfortunately, I lack the time and energy.

I had a small UI/UX feature suggestion for Summit that I think could be helpful.

Currently, Summit already does a great job visually distinguishing roles:

• Community Mods are shown in green
• Instance Admin are shown in red

I was wondering if it would be possible to add a distinct colour for the Head Mod / Top Mod of a community.

For example:

• Instance Admin: Red
• Head Mod: Yellow
• Other Mods: Green

Kind of like a stoplight system (red, yellow, green).

This would make it easier at a glance to tell who ultimately runs a community, especially in larger mod teams or when reading mod comments in threads.

Totally optional, but I think it could be a nice improvement.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/41384718

Previously, I made a post about Crowdbucks, but I just had a random (most likely stupid) follow-up thought.

What if the issue isn’t which currency to use — but the assumption that it needs to be “real” currency at all?

---

What if, instead of money, there was something like FediCoin / FediBucks / credits / points (name doesn’t matter), NOT crypto, and NOT blockchain — more like how platforms such as Wattpad operate?

Or like how carnivals and fairs work: You exchange real money at a booth, and in return you get tokens or fake currency that are only usable inside that ecosystem.

---

Some comparisons:

Wattpad coins

App “credits” or points

Forum reputation systems with unlocks

Arcade tokens

Fair/carnival tickets

---

In a Fediverse context, this could hypothetically be used for things like:

Supporting instance costs

Boosting posts or creators (opt-in), which could then potentially be exchanged for real currency (maybe, idk)

Unlocking cosmetic or convenience features

Community rewards instead of ads

Again, not crypto, not speculation, not “number go up.” More like an internal exchange or contribution system that stays inside the Fediverse.

---

So my questions are:

Is this fundamentally incompatible with Fediverse values, or just unexplored?

Would this be more acceptable than direct monetization or ads?

Could something like this remain optional and non-extractive?

Has anyone already experimented with something similar?

---

I don’t have the time, energy, or technical knowledge to build something like this — just curious whether this idea is interesting, terrible, or already solved.

Would love to hear thoughts from people more familiar with Fediverse economics and culture.

EDIT:

It gives off Japanese Pachinko vibes.

https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/the-bizarre-world-of-japanese-pachinko-gambling-without-technically-gambling/

https://www.chenlawjournal.org/pachinko/

Previously, I made a post about Crowdbucks, but I just had a random (most likely stupid) follow-up thought.

What if the issue isn’t which currency to use — but the assumption that it needs to be “real” currency at all?

What if, instead of money, there was something like FediCoin / FediBucks / credits / points (name doesn’t matter), NOT crypto, and NOT blockchain — more like how platforms such as Wattpad operate?

Or like how carnivals and fairs work: You exchange real money at a booth, and in return you get tokens or fake currency that are only usable inside that ecosystem.

Some comparisons:

Wattpad coins

App “credits” or points

Forum reputation systems with unlocks

Arcade tokens

Fair/carnival tickets

In a Fediverse context, this could hypothetically be used for things like:

Supporting instance costs

Boosting posts or creators (opt-in), which could then potentially be exchanged for real currency (maybe, idk)

Unlocking cosmetic or convenience features

Community rewards instead of ads

Again, not crypto, not speculation, not “number go up.” More like an internal exchange or contribution system that stays inside the Fediverse.

So my questions are:

Is this fundamentally incompatible with Fediverse values, or just unexplored?

Would this be more acceptable than direct monetization or ads?

Could something like this remain optional and non-extractive?

Has anyone already experimented with something similar?

I don’t have the time, energy, or technical knowledge to build something like this — just curious whether this idea is interesting, terrible, or already solved.

Would love to hear thoughts from people more familiar with Fediverse economics and culture.

EDIT:

It gives off Japanese Pachinko vibes.

https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/the-bizarre-world-of-japanese-pachinko-gambling-without-technically-gambling/

https://www.chenlawjournal.org/pachinko/