You should be easily able to add a banner using the magazine CSS. Though that's not being federated currently, I hope magazine CSS federation gets added in the future at least between kbin/mbin instances.
This should give you a banner above the threads section:
main > header {
/* Change both of these */
height: 100px;
background-image: url(https://i.imgur.com/zWuVa7U.png);
}
While this should give you one that also extends over the sidebar:
Changing the #middle to #header would put it above the kbin header (with the logo, the threads/microblog buttons, etc).
Community Engagement
There is an Active People section in the sidebar.
I think the issue here is that kbin simply doesn't have a lot of users yet.
One of the reasons I believe for that is also because the platform feels very stale or dead in plain sight.
This won't improve if you show people "0 people are viewing this thread" on every thread. Actually, it would worsen the impression that the site is dead.
A while ago, kbin's development came to a standstill because ernest was gone for weeks and the project's contribution guidelines are very restrictive.
Many contributors, including major ones, decided to leave the project and work on their own fork which uses more open contribution guidelines based on consensus.
They adopt all the changes ernest makes to kbin, but have their own features on top of that. I believe fedia.io, for example, runs mbin now.
I wouldn't say restrictive, but based on previous threads and his conversations with Melroy (guy who forked Kbin and brought Mbin), Ernest has been cautiously approving contributions in a more patient manner, and along with that the brief few weeks of absence of development from Ernest's side (and as a result, no approval on new contributions during this period of time) because he had some personal issues he had to deal with, this for some reason led some of the contributors to fire away and create a fork, I still question this move considering the pause was only briefly for a few weeks and Ernest, as always, did a great job at communicating about why things got slow during that period.
I've already mentioned my personal opinion in another message in this thread itself, so not going to repeat myself but that is what happened as far as I know.
Thank you so much! I will make use of this, what you can do with CSS is amazing although not so newbie friendly which I am to CSS, so a user-friendly option to add a banner similar to logo would be good still.
And regarding my suggestion about user engagement, showing how many people are viewing live actually does not work like that, it only shows the number of people viewing it live when the post is brand new/24 hours and when nobody is viewing it, it won't say 0 but simply not be shown at all.
Again that was a mere example, just like the online status was as well, my main reason to mention those things is to possibly spark an idea of something even better that could help kbin, but not really copy what reddit already his, they were mostly just examples of what we could have similarly or just get the thinking process going on there :)
Update: unfortunately the banner CSS given did not work, here is the imgur link I was trying to add to m/cars for reference: https://imgur.com/a/SDy0s5O. The issue is that even after I followed your instructions and posted it on the CSS box from mod panel, I tried refreshing, banner just does not pop up.
Maybe if you could help me out here, i'd really appreciate that, thank you again!
That's weird. I was testing it out with a userstyle, which worked, so I assumed it would work with custom css too. But I guess there might be some restrictions in place? Seems very restrictive though if that's the case here. Not even the first one I gave works. I'll see if I can find anything out.
Okay, so I've created a magazine and tested some stuff out.
In the first code I posted, I used the child selector (>) to select <header> elements directly inside <main> elements. For some reason, custom CSS doesn't seem to support the child selector. No matter where I try to use it, the style isn't applied.
I removed the child selector and instead used :has(hi1[hidden]) to make sure I only get the target element. Without it, it would also replace the background of the individual thread titles.
The image you're trying to use is a bit large, so I've included an example usage of background-size and background-position to change the size of the image and what part of it actually gets displayed.
With background-size, the first value is how wide the image should be, while the latter value is how high. Percentage values are relative to the element's size. So the width and height properties. You can also set absolute values, like I did with height in pixels in this example.
The big issue with this one though is that it'll only apply to the Threads and All Content views. Other views, including Microblog and individual threads, don't have the <header> element I'm looking for here.
The last two lines are there because this actually displays the name of the magazine on the banner. Since that's kind of redundant, since it's already in the bar at the top, I'm hiding the text and making it not selectable.
This one does work in all the views I tested except for when looking at a thread and its comments.
Though, something worth considering in case you intend to just use this code as-is: I just used pixels for simplicity. But the result might look entirely different on other screen resolutions than mine. Here's a list of better units to use if you want it to look the same on all screens. You can use percentages, pixels, and these other units interchangeably anywhere.
About the second code I posted, for some reason :before, much like the child selector, doesn't seem to work. I can very much target the #middle and #header elements from custom magazine CSS, but :before doesn't do anything.
I'm not sure why this is. I see no security reason to block them, so I assume it's not intentional. It's a bit hard to debug :before specifically because I don't know any way to get its styles without making it visible. So I have no idea if something is overwriting the style or if the selector just doesn't work, like is the case with the child selector. I'll have to look into this a bit more over the weekend.
I tried both the ones you mentioned, unfortunately it still does not work, is it because the image is Jpg instead of png? I also copied the image's address and pasted it.
I can see it. Maybe it's the point I mentioned here:
Though, something worth considering in case you intend to just use this code as-is: I just used pixels for simplicity. But the result might look entirely different on other screen resolutions than mine. Here's a list of better units to use if you want it to look the same on all screens. You can use percentages, pixels, and these other units interchangeably anywhere.
Maybe the values I gave are too small for you to see on your screen?
edit: wait, why does the image not work, I literally just uploaded it
edit 3: right, I just noticed that, because I'm mixing percentages and absolute units here, the image actually moves around as I change the screen size. I'll refine the example with more reliability later today.
Here's a list of better units to use if you want it to look the same on all screens.
Honestly, I pretty much suck at CSS and I honestly don't understand how i'd use it, but what I can tell you is that I am using a 2017 iMac, so you should be able to tell the screen size based on that. I am also using Firefox on MacOS.
not sure if you can view this since it's blocked in some countries, but here's a catbox upload.
OMG Wow, it looks so damn good! I wish it worked for me!
right, I just noticed that, because I'm mixing percentages and absolute units here, the image actually moves around as I change the screen size. I'll refine the example with more reliability later today.
No worries or hurries, take your time on this and let me know :)
Say, do you see any custom CSS anywhere? I mean, I'm not even sure which magazines use it anyway, do you see something on /m/pamasich? Besides the test banner, I also made the magazine name in the sidebar red.
If you don't see anything changed there, do you maybe have custom CSS turned off? In your settings, there's an option Ignore magazines custom CSS under a text field that lets you enter personal custom css. Make sure that's not checked.
More optional applicable permissions to moderators when owners add them: Right now, when I add a moderator, they can only delete, ban and moderate posts in general, but accessing the mod panel is impossible unless you are an admin, so this means, moderators can't help owners with community rules, description, or even attach a new logo. There should atleast be some kind of supermod option or role that I could enable for the mods, so that this remains an optional but needed feature for some (and I am one of them).
This is something I have noticed. It would be nice to have the magazine panel open to more moderators than just the owner (though, I understand why it may have been set up like that to begin with.)
Also, are reports also submitted and viewed under the magazine panel?
While I agree the web app is not the perfect solution, I think it actually works fairly well all things considered. It will never be as smooth as an actual app, but I think time will eventually fix that.
It looks like that poster may be a bot or troll. They just joined and somehow have made their own magazine and then crossposted from that mag, TO that mag, several times...
@ThatOneKirbyMain2568
given the sheer size of threads, most fedi platforms still lack well-developed moderation tools > this is a tough nut to crack, thus preemptive defederation is a must when it comes to threads
Very well said and you have captured many of my exact fears.
Personally, if the decentralized fediverse was more developed and mature, I would not be as concerned about federating with Threads. But, Meta is entering at a time when everything is really just starting to develop.
They’ll be the big instance and they’ll have a lot of influence over the others as a result.
Just to give an example, What would happen if Lemmy.world decided to cut off kbin? Kbin would lose a ton of content and access to most of the large communities. Threads, thanks to Meta’s resources and huge Instagram user base, will likely gain more active users and communities than lemmy in no time and they could do the same. The difference is I believe Meta may be more likely to down the line because an open fediverse doesn’t fit super nicely into their business model.
I understand many people disagree and that is fine; nobody knows the future. If we decide to federate with Threads then so be it, and if it turns out I am totally wrong then I will eat my words. All I am trying to articulate is that I think there is reason to be skeptical of Meta.
100%. Additionally, there's a difference in magnitude between lemmy.world and Threads. While it's obviously not great that so many of the large communities are on lemmy.world, Threads would have a vast majority of the fediverse's microblog content. If Meta leaves the fediverse later on, people outside of Threads will suddenly lose almost all of the activity their used to and will likely move over to Threads. And Meta, being a profit-driven company, has all the incentive in the world to do this given that it would pull tons of users from competing platforms like Mastodon.
These corporations have shown time and time again that profit is their priority, and that profit explicitly goes against our own interests. You're not going to see Zuckerberg asking people to keep things balanced by joining other instances. He'd love to pull users from Mastodon, Firefish, and Kbin over to Threads, and it's easily doable if he's welcomed with open arms like big instances across the fediverse are doing right now.
I think corporate instances should be allowed only as hosts for accounts of their own employees. Letting large companies dominate the fediverse kind of diminishes the idea of putting control of social media back into hands of the people. If the companies really wanted to help the fediverse out they should be donating to fediverse projects rather than trying to monopolize it.
I don’t think it matters that much. The users are very different. Most Threads users will be Threads users, regardless of what the fediverse does.
In the contrary, if a Threads user can interact with the fediverse, he/she could change his/her mind at some point because now he/she will be aware of the fediverse (eg Meta starts to put a lot of ads, many users will migrate towards the fediverse instead of paying Meta a fee).
As a consequence, I think Threads will stay « friendly » with its users in fear everyone migrates somewhere else. Otherwise, no one will leave Threads unless there are major issues (like Twitter or Reddit). Not federating because we fear the fediverse will not grow as much as a consequence is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of what will happen.
Just look at YouTube alternatives. People won’t leave the platform for peertube because they would lost all the content. Now, imagine that YouTube was part of it, do you really believe people would stay and endure as much ads ? I believe they would leave and YouTube would be forced to refrain itself in order to keep its users, and peertube would become much more popular.
TL;DR I don’t say we should federate at any cost tough. But I don’t believe the fediverse will grow because it rejects Threads (in fact, I think it will be the opposite). The question is more something like « Do we want the mass to be part of the fediverse ? » (with all the consequences like brands starting to put ads / communicate here, and a bunch of racists & cie that could possibly be impossible to moderate).
People are staying on YouTube and enduring ads right now… Plus if Threads is federated they will be a part of the fedi, so no more reason to change. Why change to another instance, if you get on Threads without doing nothing and already are on the biggest instance ?
For the growing possibilities check what happened to XMPP. Is XMPP growing better now ? I don’t think so…
People won’t leave YouTube because content creators don’t want them to. That’s it.
That’s what I said. People stay on YouTube because the content is locked there. If you could watch YouTube videos from Peertube without ads, I believe people would migrate and YouTube would be forced to be less aggressive with ads. I agree that’s partly because content creators do not post their content elsewhere, but that’s exactly why fediverse is nice : the content is everywhere, you can’t lock it into a single instance.
The reason for switching from Threads to fediverse is the same reason why you already left mainstream social networks. But people not aware of its existence, or locked there because the content and the people they interact with are only accessible from there, they can’t leave. That’s why many people keep a Facebook account, or why people tried Mastodon and came back to X a few weeks later.
In my opinion, if a platform can only be different from the other because of the services it proposes (instead of relying on its own content), people will be able to move easily from one platform to the other (and they will if Threads starts to abuse its position). You are afraid people will never leave Threads, but the truth is that as soon as they will have to suffer ads, they will try to find adblockers or alternatives to eliminate them. The fediverse can be this alternative.
And you really think that Threads in the fedi will means people on the Threads instance will know there is other instances with no ads? And you think they will care?
I mean there are ways to watch YouTube without ads for years. And most people still won’t uses them…
Moving easily won’t happen soon, because it’s not about moving (create a new account isn’t that hard), but it’s about changing habits. Changing a habit needs : to be forced on people (Meta’s way) or to be an act of will.
I don’t say it will be massively the case of course, but closing the door is the best way to prevent such migration.
If I had the opportunity to move from Twitter to Mastodon without loosing any content, I would have done it way sooner (and in fact, it’s more like I had to abandon this content since it does not exist on Mastodon, the people I followed etc).
It’s exactly why people stay inside an ecosystem like Apple, YouTube, Meta Quest or Playstation, because if you leave you lose everything.
I don’t see why more people would go to the fediverse if you prevent everyone access to some content. Just like in the fediverse, if your instance does not federate with the one you want, you are free to migrate towards another instance. It’s not possible if you can’t transfer from one instance to another.
I don’t say they are saints or that we should federate absolutely with them, but I don’t believe that closing the door because we want the fediverse to grow is not a convincing argument.
Yes, it’s just a personal opinion. I don’t like Meta at all, but I don’t think the creators will come here on their own. Besides, I am convinced that what should differentiate the platforms (even for games, movies and music, not just social networks) should be the services offered by every provider, not the content.
Also, I think they are many other arguments against federation (Is fediverse capable to moderate content coming from Threads ? Especially if Meta don’t do its part ?).
Personally, I will likely move with the content. I left Twitter and Reddit because of the ads, but I will give Threads a try as soon as it’s available in my country, and even pay if there is no alternative and the price is “fair” (unless some fediverse accept to federate). I already did it with YouTube, it’s just impossible to find an alternative and I can’t stand the ads anymore :/.
I’m glad you said that you don’t think that privacy is the biggest issue. Our posts are already public and can be scraped easily. I’ve stopped reading posts about privacy issues because they seem misinformed to me.
I don’t know what to think about the rest at this stage, but I’m beyond suspicious of Meta, which has proven itself to be a deeply unethical company.
mod workload increasing to unsustainable levels with the overnight addition of millions of users
meta would be a large enough instance to be considered a monopoly of the entire fediverse
the fediverse goal of putting control of social media back in the hands of users would no longer be possible if companies controlled the majority of the space
Most people probably didn’t consider the internet something that could be monopolised at the start either.
We have the same view on private social media.
IMO we should treat this like any other instance that goes against what we want to see on the fediverse, defed it on all the main instances and if someone wants to access it they can have a threads account or an account on a small instance that is federated with them.
Meta (or any large entity) cannot monopolize or control the fediverse. If their implementation starts drifting from established norms, they will be blocked by most instances or will just be incompatible. The example used to back up this argument is usually XMPP, but people forget that XMPP is still around. It never died; its just a smaller, niche network.
The fediverse is already a small, niche network. So if Meta comes in and tries to control the network, it will then be responsible for maintaining its own "Meta-fediverse" network (that some instances may choose to be a part of) while the remaining instances will remain as a small, niche network. Meta can't force current fediverse servers to implement any Meta-specific features or to change their software in any way.
The mod workload argument is the only one that I see being a real issue, but the target is wrong. Anyone worried about that should be discussing it with fediverse devs to improve mod tools, not trying to force the entire fediverse to stay at their preferred size
Meta (or any large entity) cannot monopolize or control the fediverse. If their implementation starts drifting from established norms, they will be blocked by most instances or will just be incompatible.
Right now, many are already desperate for activity and thus hesitant to defederate. Do you actually think that you'll convince people to defederate once everyone's used to all the content they provide? "Hey guys, Meta's starting to make changes, so we're going to cut the content you're used to seeing by 99%." That's an impossible sell. Once content dependence is established, there is no turning back.
… but people forget that XMPP is still around. It never died; its just a smaller, niche network. The fediverse is already a small, niche network.
Most of us want to see the open fediverse grow into something a bit less small and a bit less niche, but that possibility will be dashed away if we put activity in Meta's hands and then let them take it away from us. Tons of people will leave platforms like Mastodon to go to Threads or otherwise have to live with most of their content being gone and no longer seeing the posts of most of whom they follow. That's lots of people who would have been sold on the fediverse but now see it as dead because of the massive activity drop. Threads coming and going takes the view of our situation from "It could grow a lot," to "It really fell off when Threads left," and the latter will make it impossible to grow again.
If we want a fediverse with the values we care about to grow, we don't need Meta. It's insane to start pretending that this is the case just because Meta is offering to control 99% of the content. Patience will help us in the long run, whereas relying on Meta to carry the fediverse will absolutely hurt us.
Once content dependence is established, there is no turning back.
Everyone who is on the fediverse has already made that choice. They are intentionally on a network with less content because of the other benefits And a huge portion of the discussion of Meta joining the fediverse is made up of ppl who are saying they will block Threads on day 1.
the latter will make it impossible to grow again.
That's what everyone was saying back when the fediverse was even smaller, or even before it existed. "How can you compete with giants like G+, twitter, and facebook?" There will always be groups of people who will not participate in corporate social media. And there will always be people who like the convenience of corporate social media but get fed up with it and seek alternatives. And there will always be people who bounce between services.
Tons of people will leave platforms like Mastodon to go to Threads
They're only here because they left corporate social media. If they were going to leave for Threads, why wouldn't they do it now? They've heard all the warnings about some supposed EEE and assume that Threads won't connect to the fediverse forever so why would Threads adding ActivityPub support suddenly change their mind? Going to threads now puts them in the same state as going to threads later in some hypothetical future where the fediverse is too small to matter.
If we want a fediverse with the values we care about to grow...
I don't care about Meta and I'm not relying on them for anything. When they join the fediverse, individual instance owners will still have all the power. User on the fediverse will still be able to control their own feeds. But there are people who use Threads and being able to communicate with them would be nice. I don't think any of the fears about Meta on the fediverse are justified and I think the fediverse will continue on just like it has for more than a decade.
The fediverse is an obvious threat to Facebook and any other corporate social media company. If the fediverse wasn’t a threat or has the potential of ever one day becoming a threat … then companies like Facebook would not want anything to do with the fediverse.
The fact that a major social media company like Facebook even remotely wants anything to do with the fediverse means that this new start up is doing something and has the potential of becoming something some day. Otherwise, Facebook would not want anything to do with it.
Besides, Facebook already has a huge market share of the social media pie … they literally control over half the social media content on the internet right now. They already have more than enough of a platform to connect to their userbase … why should we allow them onto our space? We need the content … they don’t.
And like others have said, if you allow a big fish onto your small pond, the big fish will automatically control everything. The big fish will swim around your little pool for a while and kill everything and then leave, leaving an empty pool that nobody wants.
Admit it … Facebook just wants in to kill the fediverse. They don’t want to add it to their service, they don’t want to incorporate it … they want to swallow it whole, let it die and abandon it.
Defederate and don’t let them anywhere near our space. Otherwise, we’ll be signing our own death warrant.
You are taking this massive “if” and building a whole policy of preemptive panic around it:
I don't see how it's a "massive 'if'." If it was just some fringe possibility, I wouldn't be so concerned, but the thing is that I don't see any realistic scenario where we don't become dependent on Meta for microblog activity. If 99% of microblogs come from Threads, that's exactly what's happening. To give an example that's more relevant to the thread aggregation side of Kbin, if Reddit were to federate and we didn't defederate, Reddit would make up 99% of the thread activity we see, we'd get used to that, and we'd be completely dependent on them to maintain that. With how desperate people seem to be for a quick boost in activity that they'll just take whatever Mark Zuckerberg offers as if there are no strings attached, I don't see how we just end up fine if Threads is to ever leave in the future. If Threads becomes most of what we see, we'll be dependent on them, and if Threads then leaves (which they have incentive to do), much of who we have right now on these platforms will join Threads after getting used to the activity, and getting new users will be much more difficult.
And if we don’t and we defederate, we’ve just cut off potentially interesting conversations with interesting people based on ideology.
That's definitely true. Again, What Meta is essentially offering is free activity on a silver platter. What's completely nonsensical is to act like there aren't any strings attached when there are obviously strings attached. Meta is trying to maximize profit. Anyone who thinks that Zuckerberg suddenly cares about an open fediverse even though its values (people being on multiple instances, everything being transparent, no one person or group having too much control, etc.) go directly against his goal is either delusional or very misinformed about what these for-profit tech companies do. It strongly benefits him to take users from Mastodon, Firefish, Misskey, Kbin, etc., and allowing ourselves to depend on him for fediverse activity puts him in a prime position to do it.
What's completely nonsensical is to act like there aren't any strings attached when there are obviously strings attached.
Let's look at the strings
Meta is trying to maximize profit. Anyone who thinks that Zuckerberg suddenly cares about an open fediverse even though its values (people being on multiple instances, everything being transparent, no one person or group having too much control, etc.) go directly against his goal is either delusional or very misinformed about what these for-profit tech companies do.
That's all true. But that's not really a string - it's just a fact of any for-profit organisation that sets up an instance
It strongly benefits him to take users from Mastodon, Firefish, Misskey, Kbin, etc., and allowing ourselves to depend on him for fediverse activity puts him in a prime position to do it.
But he can do that anyway. And in fact people who who want to interact with the 140million ish Threads users currently have one option - join Threads. With federation I can communicate with Threads users without joining Threads. That needs to be factored in.
That's all true. But that's not really a string - it's just a fact of any for-profit organisation that sets up an instance
Correct, and it's a fact that's horrendously bad for an organization that's going to harbor a vast majority of the content on the fediverse.
But he can do that anyway. And in fact people who who want to interact with the 140million ish Threads users currently have one option - join Threads. With federation I can communicate with Threads users without joining Threads. That needs to be factored in.
The people who are at currently at this point have already gone to Threads. The main issue I see is everyone getting used to the 50x boost in activity that Threads provides and then Meta removing that by defederating, pulling people to Threads when they wouldn't have gone there otherwise. Allowing ourselves to become dependent on Meta lets them get users they wouldn't have before and kill the growth prospects of platforms like Mastodon, both of which they have incentive to do.
You say: The people who are at currently at this point have already gone to Threads. Then you say that if traffic from Threads is subsequently withdrawn, all the people who haven't already gone to Threads will... go to Threads.
You are basing it on the idea that Threads federating is a temporary move designed to advertise Threads. It's a theory. But seems unlikely. If Threads goes away again, I suspect that the current Fediverse userbase will, by and large still be here.
You say: The people who are at currently at this point have already gone to Threads. Then you say that if traffic from Threads is subsequently withdrawn, all the people who haven't already gone to Threads will... go to Threads.
Let me clarify. When I say, "The people who are currently at this point…," I mean the people who right now feel that they need to interact Threads. If they do, they're probably there. My issue is that if people are dependent on Threads for the vast majority of microblog activity, more people will feel that they need to keep that interaction with Threads. I'm not seeing how this is some far fetched theory more than it is straight up inevitable. If activity increases by 50x because 98% of the content is now coming from Threads and most of whom people are following are on Threads, more people will feel the need to stay connected. I don't see how it could be otherwise. This means that if an instance wanted to defederate from Threads for any reason or if Threads defederated themselves (which they have tons of incentive to do later down the line), tons of people would leave.
To give you an example, imagine if kbin.social was to defederating from lemmy.world and lemmy.ml due to unhappiness with their moderation. Obviously, defederating from any instance is going to lose you some users, but those two instances harbor a massive portion — probably a large majority — of the content on the threadiverse. Tons of people would leave kbin.social for the simple reason that most all of the activity that they were used to would be gone otherwise.
Now, with Threads, there is some resistance in the fact that Meta is a massive for-profit corporation. Many people won't move to Threads on principle. However, this is countered by the extremely strong pull factor of the sheer percentage of activity Threads would harbor. If people get used to all of that activity based on Threads and are following mostly Threads accounts, tons of those people will leave an instance should that instance defederate later on or jump ship from the fediverse to Threads should Meta cease federation. And among those who don't leave, there will likely be a lot less motivation to post after such a drop in activity and interaction.
I don't see how dependency on Meta for the vast majority microblog content could possibly be a good idea. If Kbin were to implement a silencing feature like what Mastodon apparently has, where Threads content would be invisible outside of Threads users that you've followed, I think that'd be fine. That way, people could intearct with a few Threads accounts they're especially interested in as opposed to the public microblog feeds being 99% Threads and us being dependent on Threads to maintain the activity of those feeds. But just letting them flood our microblogs seems like an extremely dangerous idea that's wholly unnecessary, and I haven't been convinced otherwise.
And in fact people who who want to interact with the 140million ish Threads users currently have one option - join Threads. With federation I can communicate with Threads users without joining Threads.
What if the defederation happens in the other direction? Defederating an instance is a lot like banning a user, and I'm not sure if there are any mainstream social media sites that I haven't heard abuse their ban system. If other instances start becoming more popular because people want to use them to talk to Threads, that gives Threads a lot of power over which of those instances are allowed to thrive. In the worst case scenario, it could easily kill an instance if too many of their users were there for Threads and Threads decides to cut them off.
A fediverse that is popular because it can talk to a centralized app doesn't sound like a particularly healthy fediverse to me.
Is there some A / B testing going on? I still have Magazines in the top bar. Collections as far as I understood is simply a grouping of various communities & magazines that share the same related topics and I guess setting a collection as favorite will act like you subscribed to them (I haven't really used them before).
Check if any userstyle/userscript is hiding it maybe? It's definitely still there for me, and I'm sure @ernest would have said something if he was A/B testing removing it.
imo the ui on kbin is wonderful, and very usable on mobile unlike reddit and other sites, and especially preferable compared to lemmy. i dont imagine there will be another exodus from reddit, it was all performative and hardly anyone stuck around.
Thing is, Lemmy has Photon and Alexandrite alternative frontends that are dramatically better than the standard web UI, and a plethora of good mobile apps already, like Boost and Eternity. :\
kbinMeta
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.