Maybe it’s just me, but I find this a bit of an obnoxious way to ask the question.

Interesting but unsurprising polling perhaps. Although the headline is only 18% of leavers think Brexit has been a success, it does also include 61% still think it will turn out well in the end. 72% of the leavers would still vote for Brexit even knowing how it’s turned out.

Given how close the referendum was, this is yet another poll suggesting the vote would have tipped the other way if run now. Although that is just illustrative, it’s quite different to voting to join the EU now which I doubt would be popular.

I think the threshold for rejoining is much higher than it was for leaving - we’d have to sign up to the Euro, we’d get no rebates despite the ongoing borked common agricultural policy, and all the negative aspects of the EU would come back to the fore. I was a remainer, but many of the negatives of the EU have often been ignored due to the polarisation of the debate, including by EU citizens who have focused on a them-vs-us mentality thanks to the antagnostic approach of the Conservative government.

But the EU does have serious problems - structural problems in the Eurozone, unfixed since the 2008 debt crisis, major issues with democratic accountability and unaddressed financial corruption, difficulties effectively dealing with members like Hungry and Poland as they slide towards more authoritarianism, and lack of consensus on dealing with the migration issues which continue to cost lives and are a stain on the entire EU’s (and the UK’s) reputation. Despite being a remainer, if I’m honest I’m not sure how I’d vote.

Expect companies to push hard against anything that costs them money. In this case, there is a smal overhead for reminding subscribers, but the “subscribe and forget about it” is an important source of revenue. Particularly the users who get a “free” subscription, barely used it but it converts to a paid subscription. I’m sure they can live without the revenue stream, but of course they want to keep it if they can as it’s zero effort money.

The whole reason this is being proposed is because this is a widespread issue affecting consumers.

Yeah I agree - subsidising solar and also subsidising heat pump conversions and insulation for for older properties are essential parts of the mix. These would be impactful on energy generation / energy saving, and in removing our reliance on gas for heating.

Are we a nation of cumudgeons?

This makes sense. But the biggest issue is that the word “transphobia” means different things to different people, which then makes it a nightmare for anyone trying to police a space with free speech.

There is a similar problem with Homophobia but less marked and controversial perhaps? I’m a gay guy. If someone says “I hate gay people” thats obviously homophobia. But if someone says “I don’t think gay people should marry, because marriage is a religious thing” is that homophobia? I don’t agree with it but it’s an opinion. Someone can be hateful and hold that opinion, but that opinion itself doesn’t mean the person is hateful - at least to me. But another gay person may say “no that is hateful in itself”. Where do you draw the line?

Also to my understanding the fediverse doesn’t have any written rules on what is allowed. Each server sets their rules, and there has been consensus around certain rules (such as those you mention). The complexity comes in enforcing the intepretation of rules by one server on another, and the risk is fragmentation with some places defederated between others and people getting confused what is or isn’t interconnected. A may defederate from B, but both may stay federated with C. The content on A and B is visible from C but users interacting with content from C on A and B won’t see each other in C’s communities or interect.

I have no answers for this. It’s just going to be a big challenge that is inherent to this model. But it is still way better than what exists in old social media.