Yeah, I'm not sure why people want that. In all honestly I wouldn't implement it if it were me, but if you do I suggest restricting it to communities with the same topic, or maybe even restricting it to communities with the exact same name.
I don't know if these already exist, but thinking long-term of how to prevent Reddit-like problems:
An option to move a post to a different community (with the agreement of the other community's moderators) if the post is in the wrong community, but otherwise seems valid/good-faith/high-effort/etc.
And for the opposite situation where the post is just garbage, but highly upvoted by bots/brigading, there could be a "nuke it from orbit" option that not only deletes it and bans the poster, but also bans everyone that upvoted it.
Another reason is to avoid the Reddit problem of people upvoting of off-topic posts by people who don't pay attention to what community it's posted in. I don't think Piefed/Lemmy/etc. has those kind of users (yet) but it's good future-proofing.
I've often felt that the web should work more like Git, so you can keep the content locally and just pull updates when you need.
The term "social media" is already toxic. When I started using the Internet, socialising and media were two separate things. Conflating the two implies that every time we say something, we are publishing an article and should care about how many views and likes we get, instead of making a genuine attempt at connection. And it suggests that every reply should be some kind of review of the post it replies to.
In the days of forums, people would just post what came into mind. They were more honest because there was no number next to your comment rating how good it was.
Browsers should be designed from the start for the benefit of the users. There are too many "features" that only benefit the server owners. It's been this way for a long time. Like the "Referer" header. Old as dirt, but how do I benefit from telling a server what page I was visiting beforehand?
Client-side scripting is a hack. HTML didn't have all the tags people wanted or needed, so instead of carefully updating it to include new features, they demanded that browsers just execute arbitrary code on the user's computer, and with that comes security vulnerabilities, excessive bandwidth use and a barrier-to-entry that makes it difficult to develop new browsers, giving one company a near-monopoly.
Quite the opposite in fact. Microtransactions offer the promise of fun, but never deliver, because in order to incentivise users to purchase them, the player must feel like the game is 90% of the way to being fun and that tiny additional purchase will get it there.
It's like the cartoon image of the donkey rider holding a carrot on the end of a rod. The donkey keeps moving to try to get the carrot, but never quite reaches it.
Quite the opposite in fact. Microtransactions offer the promise of fun, but never deliver, because in order to incentivise users to purchase them, the player must feel like the game is 90% of the way to being fun and that tiny additional purchase will get it there.
It's like the cartoon image of the donkey rider holding a carrot on the end of a rod. The donkey keeps moving to try to get the carrot, but never quite reaches it.
The root of the issue is this idea that a web browser should be an "everything app" that can basically recreate the functionality of any other app on the system. It's total feature creep, and in addition to privacy issues, creates a barrier-to-entry that makes it very hard for people to create new browsers because of the sheer amount of features they're expected to implement.
Perhaps some kind of fediweb that allows sites to rank other sites for trustworthiness. Then as a user you mark a few sites as trusted, and use their judgement to find more sites.
I thought of another one. In this age of decreasing digital freedom, PieFed (and every other website) should allow people to register multiple email addresses, in case a user suddenly loses access to one.