60

Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)

I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.

Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.

I know yall will have fun with this!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cynar@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 10 minutes ago)

Proviso of this is that, globally, politicians grow a spine, along with a sense of morality, and long term planning. It would also require them to deal with the money hoarding issues with the hyper rich.

  • The first step is a massive push for renewables. They should be representing 200-500% of grid demand regularly. If nuclear can get up to speed and be part of this, great, but we can't wait on it.

  • That excess power should be soaked up by large scale, portable, energy storage. Green hydrogen is the current best option, but synthetic fossil fuels could also take up the slack. Depending on the area, desalination could also be combined into this.

  • We seriously decarbonise the transport networks. For vans and smaller, electric vehicles win. BYD have demonstrated that low cost electric cars are viable. For larger vehicles, where electric becomes inefficient, hydrogen is viable. This is where a lot of the excess hydrogen will be going.

  • Carbon credits with teeth. Rather than relying on a planned economy mindset, we can make capitalism work for us. We need a global fixed carbon emission limit. This limit should trend towards net zero on a preset timetable. Credits are bid on, akin to stock market trades. Companies must have credits by the end of the year/period. The fine for not having credits should be a multiple of the closing credits price (10x?). The fine for falsification should be multiples of that, erring towards corporate execution levels.

This will force easy savings out of the market quickly. It will then force compulsory emitters to factor in Carbon costs.

  • Combined with the carbon credits will be negative credits. If a group takes a ton of CO² out of the air, long term, they gain a new credit. They can sell this to emitters. This will provide the CO² emissions industry requires, while meeting net zero.

An example of this might be large scale bio capture on the open ocean. Grow seaweed etc on pontoons, and turn it into a solid. This can then be locked up (old coal mines?) taking carbon out permanently.

  • Geo engineering. There are multiple methods of reducing incident sunlight on the earth. Everything from powders in the upper atmosphere, to mylar solar shades at the Lagrange point. They will be short term fixes, but will buy us time.

None of these require massive reductions in quality of life. They do require changes in how we do things. It's also worth noting that I've not covered the numerous problems to be solved e.g. power grid upgrades to account for renewables. None of these should be insurmountable however, just engineering, or political/policing challenges.

An no, I've no fucking idea how to get politicians to grow a spine and do what's required for our long term comfort/survival. Fixing the planet? That's just a (really big) engineering problem. Fixing human nature? ...Fuck knows.

[-] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

If they won't shut down their CO²-spewing factories and plants, then we will have to.

[-] Goldholz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

No plastics but natural materials, wood, leather stuff like that Renewable energies, reduce consumption, public transport everywhere instead of cars. Higher density of living together.

PUNISH THE COMPANYS! NO PRIVAT JETS OR IN LAND FLYING!

Go vegan/vegitarian. Not just for the enviorment but personal health! And when meat then not mass produced meat. Butcherm if you cant afford it then maybe dont. Its not neccissary

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

companies and countries have largely abandoned it already, the most polluting ones dint do anything to reduce it at all. consumers are the smaller emitters of it.

these companies have actively funded groups to dissuade "carbon usage" so they dont have to reduce thier own emissions.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm doing my part by not having children.

If there's no humans there cannot be pollution.

[-] python@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I'm vegan, have no intention of ever buying a car and plan on never having children. That's probably as much individual action as anyone can ask for. Anything after that is up to corporations and governments, so we should make sure they are incentivized to do the right thing 👍

[-] coaxil@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

Throw in no plane travel also

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Move to renewable energy. We have the necessary capacity, just keep installing renewable sources and phasing out the rest. Keep nuclear plants operational as long as they're safe, too, but don't waste too much resources building new ones.

Keep on moving electric storage from lithium ion to pumped hydro/sodium ion/other technologies depending on scale. Leave lithium ion for portable electronics and specialized cases only.

Develop better public transit networks, ideally make it free like in some cities. Also, make bicycle lanes mandatory for new neighborhoods, and convert old roads to have bicycle lanes whenever possible. With that, you won't need to ban cars as they'll grow less relevant (although you can increase tax on car sales to raise money and further disincentivise car ownership).

Also, develop high-speed rail whenever it makes sense, as an organic and much more ecological replacement for planes. Make sure they are modular enough to scale for demand, to avoid dragging extra.

Plant more trees and algae to help scrub the extra CO2. Intensify marine plastic collection efforts to assist the natural growth of marine ecosystems.

Ban petroleum-based plastics whenever possible. For most applications, there are more friendly biologically produced options; they are fairly cheap, too, it's just that regular plastic is even cheaper.

Extend reduce-reuse-recycle. Make more places serve into your own tare, make use (on a personal level) of what you normally throw away, and for what you do throw away, make sure it gets into recycling. Get creative! For example, did you know some used plastic bottles can be turned into a 3D printer filament? You can go wherever from there!

Reduce beef production/import and consumption. For what you do consume, make sure it comes from milk breeds, because otherwise you don't share the ecological footprint with the dairy, which skyrockets the footprint of a steak. In any case, beef is the single most terrible food source in terms of ecological footprint, being several times worse than pork, poultry and dozens to hundreds times worse than plant foods.

Oh, and the AI centers currently in construction by tech giants are becoming one extra major point of concern. We should review which of these are actually necessary, because this thing doesn't seem to stop scaling up, with some planned centers consuming as much energy as a major city.

[-] Denjin@feddit.uk 2 points 3 hours ago

There's now no way to stop or reverse the inevitable collapse of the comfortable way of life we have right now. This isn't a fight for survival or for the planet, it's to perpetuate the system we enjoy at the moment.

The only way remaining to minimise the damage to our way of life is with some huge geo-engineering projects. Like scattering reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect some sunlight away or releasing some novel chemical into the oceans to fix carbon dioxide and lock it away.

The risks of experimenting like this has always outweighed the benefits (like the guys who thought they could kill a hurricane and instead magnified it and sent it back inland resulting in the deaths of multiple people). But now it's too late to worry about things like that because the inevitable impacts of climate change including wild fires, habitat destruction, biodiversity collapse, extreme weather events are all here now while most of the world is still arguing about whether it even exists or not.

[-] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago

Engineer a virus to send back in time to slow down CO2 emissions

wait a minute...

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

andromeda strain

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Starting about 2 years ago, we in the US had a plan and investments. Building out renewables and grid storage like gangbusters. Incentives to weatherize and update hvac. EV incentives and a program to build out charging infrastructure. Finally some investment in intercity rail. No new ice cars after 2035, and a mandate for EV trucks. Huge promises of EV delivery trucks from usps, ups, amazon. It was a good start.

So much for that idea

[-] Baggie@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 hours ago

I'm going off the top of my head here:

Okay so you know the concept of evaporative cooling for the new AI data centres? It's hugely wasteful, and definitely not the only way to accomplish the goal, but it's cheaper. I feel like if we actually figured out all the bullshit of that calibre and just outlawed it, we'd make a significant start towards improvement and only marginally impact the bank statements of a few ultra rich billionaires.

Stop allowing people to dump exhaust and waste untreated into the air and otherwise in the environment, full stop. Full illegal, if you violate it the entire company is dissolved. That'll suck for shipping, manufacturing, fuck it. We need to actually stop this to achieve some kind of meaningful change. Go back to sails and windmills if we need to, we achieved global industry and shipping before the internal combustion engine existed, we can do it again.

Phase out fossil fuels. It'll suck a bit, fuck it. Increase reliance on public transport and population density. Make it so you don't need individual transport to accomplish basic necessities for the vast majority of people.

Ramp up public collaborative research into batteries, power storage, carbon capture, climate science. At this point we're playing catch up, we need everything we can to try to rectify this shit storm like yesterday.

I think the first step is to get a good spotter and then exhale on the pull.

[-] cattywampas@midwest.social 42 points 11 hours ago

solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life

This is not possible. Barring some miracle technologies being developed, we would have to radically change our standards of living and give up our modern convenient lives to make meaningful changes.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago

The idea of personal action vs. corporate/government action is a false choice. The government can force the corpos to stop burning the planet, but that will mean significant lifestyle changes for everybody.

It also means getting our shit together about immigration/ migration/ refugees. And not just in the US, but globally. A humanitarian catastrophe is assured otherwise.

I'm not optimistic.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 26 points 11 hours ago

Stop burning fossil fuels. There is no way that doesn't include that.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 hours ago

The simple fact is, we buy what's available on the market. If we want to phase out fossil fuels...the government needs to step in and ban using them. Then, car companies will all be forced to switch to cleaner alternatives, and that's what consumers will start buying.

This goes for every single product on the market. Regulate the shit out of it, and the market will shift. But if you leave it up to the market to decide...it will always choose the cheapest, most profitable option.

We, as consumers, have almost no say in the matter. We buy what we need, based on the available options.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Negative, you don't ban things to get them to go away, you just end up with tons of legal fights that last forever. You make the next gen stuff cheaper. You fund solar, electric and nuclear, and anything else that's renewable and cleaner than what we have now to the max. You kill the market for it, not try and ban it.

Fund the hell out of the research and you'll make the old tech obsolete. People will choose via their wallets and kill the industry overnight basically.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 hours ago

Remember when we discovered there was a giant hole in the ozone layer, and scientists determined that it was due to all the chlorofluorocarbons we were using for a million different things?

Yeah. They didn't get rid of CFC's by incentivizing alternatives. They straight up banned them. And it forced the world to start finding other ways to get the same things done. Period. The world didn't end. We just started using less harmful methods.

When it comes to fossil fuels, we've been fucking around with incentives, in the hope that industry and the market will change their patterns, voluntarily...and we are still nowhere near our goals. And at this point, it's starting to look like they've stopped even pretending they care.

If you make it an "option"...they will never change. If you make it mandatory...they have no choice. It really is that simple.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

CFCs didn't make your food, or transport you to work or make sure the electricity stayed on in hospitals. You're talking about something that while used, was not a major foundation of the entire global existence. It's not even in the same galaxy.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago

They were used in almost everything that required compressed air to function...from fire extinguishers to refrigeration units, air conditioners, and even hair spray bottles. Entire industries needed to come up with alternatives, with millions of products directly affected.

Sure...fossil fuels are a bigger issue. But that only means that even harder methods are required to force a change.

Look around you. What gains have we made, by leaving it up to the fossil fuel industry to phase itself out, voluntarily? We already have cheaper alternatives...thanks to the incentives you mentioned. But we are still nowhere near the point of replacing them on any significant scale. That will never happen as long as they are still "allowed" on the market.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 10 points 9 hours ago

Eat the rich. I remember when the Twitter account that posted where Musk's private jet is all the time and holy shit, he travelled a lot.

Like, multiple times a week where this machine that fucks up the environment is used to transport a single person.

Or the disgusting mega yacht that Zuckerberg uses.

During my whole life I'm not gonna destroy the environment like every single one of leeches on society does in a month.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 12 hours ago

attack the capitalist system.

[-] kelpie_returns@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

We get our strongest guy and they get their strongest guy and we end it with single combat. Winner takes all, no do-overs, no mulligans, one alternate for each side, and the weapons and location will be decided by a board of neutral parties in coordination with each side's coach, contender, and any other relevant staff.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 26 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Vote.

Edit: to be clear, vote in every election you have access to. Local voting and primaries are just important. Voting even if you don’t like any of the options is still important.

If you don’t vote then you’re part of the problem.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago

Depends on where you live.

In some places, voting is extremely important and can affect things majorly.

In some places, voting is completely useless because the voter has legitimately no power in a rigged system.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

If a rigged vote gets 100 votes to person A and 0 votes for person B then you will think person B’s ideas aren’t valid.

If a rigged vote gets 100 for person A and 35 for person B, well person B’s ideas shouldn’t be ignored. It also shows the 90 people that didn’t vote that maybe they should vote next time.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 hours ago

In a rigged election, you’re not going to be delivered legitimate vote totals.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Soo by realistic do you mean something you and me could actually do? Then almost nothing. It will stop when it stops, because the other 8 billion people have a say. I do political activism on the off chance it will indirectly affect something somehow, but I don't think it has to date.

If you just mean non-disruptive per the 99% comment, a carbon tax is often thought to be the way to go. It makes greener things cheaper and so more favoured by buyers in a really balanced, fair way.

We had a small one in Canada, and a massive political movement for cheap gas started and crushed it. :(

[-] Clbull@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

Geoengineering: Whether through launching solar shades into space to block sunlight and cool the planet down, pump aerosols into the atmosphere, cloud seeding, or anything else. I think this is where our research should be going. I think it's too late to avoid the worst-case-scenarios of climate change from merely cutting emissions, so more drastic measures to alleviate or even reverse the effects may be necessary. Plus it'll help us with any future colonizing and terraforming of worlds outside of Earth.

Public transport infrastructure to reduce our reliance on cars & planes: While I don't think hyperloops or a transatlantic tunnel are feasible, building tens of thousands of kilometres worth of overground and underground railway routes to interconnect towns and cities with high speed maglev trains is. China have the right idea.

Right to work from home: Remote working reduces our dependency on cars and frees up real estate to address the various housing crises we have.

Right to repair and outlawing planned obsolescence: Should we have to buy a new smartphone every 3 or so years because Apple or Samsung want to maximize profits? Do we care at all about the amount of electronic waste we're producing?

Accelerate our efforts to reverse desertification and plant trillions more trees: If we can turn parts of the Sahel, Gobi Desert and the Australian outback green, that could have a very beneficial effect on the environment.

[-] Goldholz 1 points 55 minutes ago

Oh hell no. Lets not fuck with nature even more. We must not play god! Geoengineering might cause more problems than its use!

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 12 points 12 hours ago

dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.

This is ridiculous, because the problem inherently requires cooperative change, and as we've seen people will throw shitfits over things as small as plastic straws.

A big thing would be to start switching from ever expanding auto infrastructure to public transit systems where possible.

  1. Fewer vehicles that transport more people
  2. Can use the space that is currently occupied for parking cars better

Another big thing requires changing our diets. Some types of food are more resource intensive than others, but also we ship food all over the planet and the resources for transport also contributes. Eating food that is in season on your continent would make a big difference.

The last thing is maybe the least obvious to regular people, but maybe we don't need to build that data center yet if we can't power it without fossil fuel. We need to entirely stop expanding energy usage until we've switched over entirely to sustainables.

In summary, basically everything that needs to happen is going to affect regular people, and they're going to have to get over it, or we're going to make the planet completely unlivable.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Agree with you here, life needs to change. For OP I'd say - define change.

I've gone almost completely carbon neutral (I mean, outside of groceries and things I literally need to survive), but for my house and my daily routine, I'm happy. I'd say my life has been changed - but not much. Now if you asked my conservative family if my life changed they'd be clutching their pearls and fainting.

I have:

  • Went from a 2-car household to a 1-car household, replacing the aging vehicle with an EV with an in-home charger
  • My spouse can only drive to work (US based), but I now take the bus
  • I currently use Lime and am getting an e-bike soon for local travel
  • I've switched our HVAC system from gas furnace to a heat pump. I still have gas if it gets insanely cold, but last year it only turned on twice, so my usage is down about 95% from where it was before
  • My water heater is still gas, but within the next year I'll be converting it
  • My electricity is 100% renewable in my area, but even if it wasn't all of this would still be more efficient, and even then solar and batteries are still on the table.

For me these have been relatively easy changes, minor impacts to my life. If I even mention that we went down to be a one car house my conservative family freaks out - unable to even imagine it. So for them yeah life would be pretty different - but as a whole it'd be better for us.

It's easy to blame the corporations, but we buy their products. Yes the oil and gas are the worst. You know what would change those companies though? If we all stopped buying so much oil and gas. "But what about airlines or other industries". Again, we're the ones who buy them. We don't have much rail where we are but I vote with my wallet and take rail whenever I can. I avoid flying unless it's the only option. If everyone tried to do even some of these things we'd be having a noticeable impact. (Force the corps too, they don't get off scot-free, but damnit neither do we. We can do both)

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

It's not everything obviously, but mandate that all people who can do their job from home must do their job from home. This will take a bite out of cars and improve general human morale.

Eliminate carbon trading programs and just set hard limits. Went over your allocation of carbon? Guess you're done for the quarter.

Eliminate LLCs. Bring on the accountability.

[-] cibicibi@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 12 hours ago

In my opinion it is not possible to fight climate change while maintaining the same standards of life that we have now. Even if we are going to try, this will probably not be followed by many states with big population, so probably its not gonna work. From what I see, everyone is fighting climate change today by posting stuff on their social medias but when it comes to change habits, its another story.

Anyway, my idea is that we don't have to ban things like cars and airplanes but we can use them more efficiently. We can repair more and buy less. Do we really need to change a car after 100.000 km? In my country, If you live in a big city you can use public transport most of the time, so why we don't start to connect well also the small places?

Do we really need to buy fruits and vegetables that comes from other continents and needs to be chemically treated, transported, stocked and consequently generates pollution?

In the consumer technology Sector people usually changes their computers and phones every 3-5 years even if the hardware is still working well. The software is usually becoming more heavier over the years without adding real features (See Meta's apps). We must accept that this is not compatible with fighting climate change because we are producing too much waste that is avoidable together with massive exploitation of resources. The majority of users are not educated to understand how our technology works at its most basic level, I think that we may start from here.

Maybe we cannot erase billionaires but we can stop adulating or hating them and giving them unnecessary notoriety.

[-] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 12 hours ago

Tax billionaires out of existence, ban fossil fuels, invest in carbon capture, ban corporate greed, switch all solutions to the slightly more expensive, green alternative

[-] Eternal192@piefed.social 9 points 12 hours ago

Biggest problem is that only about 20% of the population of our planet is trying to make a difference and the rest are too poor to care and the 1% are busy building bunkers with the money they stole from the once middle class that are now too poor to do anything.

My answer isn't to tax the rich, it's to get rid of them and invest all that money into green tech, funding reforestation, improving EVs, that's just of the top of my head.

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

That 80% may care, especially since climate change will hit them the hardest, but there's a lot less they can do to lower emmisions. Ask them to:

  • stop flying

  • stop driving

  • stop buying cheap plastic clothes, toys etc.

  • eat less meat

  • don't use as much AC

They'll just reply OK, already doing all that...

The richest 10% globally (~$50,000) account for half of carbon emmisions while the poorest half only account for 10%. The problem isn't that the top 20% are the only ones who care, the problem is there lifestyle is disproportionately causing this.

[-] Bruncvik@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

Encourage decentralisation and self-sufficiency. Produce and consume more locally. I think residential solar is a good start, as it may lead to reduction in overseas shipping for LNG, oil and coal. Small farms and workshops for daily necessities or repairs will further reduce need for commercial transportation. Work from home or encouraging local offices instead of corporate campuses will spread the population, make local businesses more viable, and reduce personal transportation.

All these encouragements should be done via tax credits or subsidies, so vote for parties who'd deliver those.

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Decentralization in general is less efficient and therefore requires more resources. For example small scale farming has less yield per acre compared to large scale farming, thus you have to use more acres to produce the same yield leading to more environmental destruction. Or with the small local workshops, each of those workshops will require a vast array of machines and tools to handle every situation, some that may be rarely used if at all, so you need to produce thousands of copies of these tools for every shop that may not be used, using more resources, as opposed to having to only create one copy for a central repair facility.

The cost, including the environmental cost, of transport rarely exceeds the gains in efficiency from centralization. Working at an office for a computer job is the exception as theres very little gain. But working from home in a job where you cant send your work over a wire to the next worker would obviously lose a lot of efficiency from work from home.

We don't want to spread people out, the more spread out they are the longer it will take to get places and the more likely they will use a car. We need people in dense centralized places because that's where we get these efficiencies of scale. Public transportation becomes better with density, distribution of goods becomes easier, heating and cooling large complexes is more efficient than individual homes.

[-] mateofeo85@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

Aren’t we at the point of no return?

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 12 hours ago

Passed it a while ago. That doesn't mean we can't slow down.

Humanity will evolve to deal with the changes, maybe. Maybe not.

[-] Dave@lemmy.nz 7 points 12 hours ago

It's not an on/off switch. Everything we can do will lessen the impact even if it can't be stopped.

But as others mention, real impact comes from governments and international cooperation, not individual actions. Hence why voting is so important.

[-] 0ops@piefed.zip 4 points 11 hours ago

There's always damage control that can be done

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TheAlbatross 7 points 12 hours ago

I don't think there's any hope of addressing climate change as long as Europe and the USA adhere to a capitalist economic system.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 12 hours ago

Adopt. Don't make new people. Take in people who have been abandoned. My father had the same idea in the 1970s — I suppose I should be fortunate my mother overruled him on that one. But he had the idea almost 50 years ago, for similar reasons.

And apply a similar philosophy to the rest of your life. We all know the word recycle. And I have been a proponent of recycling for over 30 years. I've heard it doesn't help. I've heard some municipalities take it all to the same place. I don't care. I still do it. But I also remember when there were three words. The original slogan went "Reduce. Reuse. Recycle." Many people forgot the first two. You can reuse and repurpose a lot of things. But you should also reduce consumption as well. Eat less processed food. Stick to protein — plant and animal (unless you're a vegetarian/vegan obviously). Stick to the outside of the grocery store (produce, dairy, deli, meat). Bakery is nice for an occasional treat, but find out what they make in-house and not ship in frozen.

I don't think I'm doing enough on my own. I also don't have illusions I'll convince many others. I'm not really trying to. I'm not trying to save the world, just survive it.

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 hours ago

Why do you say stick to protein? I understand for health reasons but emissions wise starches like wheat and maize are some of the most efficient per calorie, especially when compared to animal protein..

I guess you could argue there less filling so you'll eat more but you'd need to eat a ton of potato chips to get to the same amount of emmisions as a steak.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34271 readers
1174 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS