• 1 Post
  • 47 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 17th, 2023

help-circle











  • bloup@lemmy.sdf.orgtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldXXX
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Thanks for being patient with me, and I guess it’s just semantics. But personally, when I hear something like “REITs typically don’t own SFH”, I infer it to mean that such REITs are pretty hard to find or something, not just relatively uncommon. But I understand you now.




  • bloup@lemmy.sdf.orgtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldXXX
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    From the article:

    Residential REITs can hold virtually any collection of residential rental property, from hundreds of single-family homes to mobile home parks, boutique apartment buildings, or huge multifamily complexes.

    All I am saying: I don’t think it’s right to say “REITs typically own commercial real estate not SFH”. Especially when you consider how many SFHs are getting slurped up by private equity. You don’t think they will sell securities based on these new real estate holdings?



  • I have to say, I think the article actually does address what you’re saying, in particular here:

    There are a couple of reasons as to why this is so surprising. Firstly, the Trust & Safety aspect: a few months ago, several Lemmy servers were absolutely hammered with CSAM, to the point that communities shut down and several servers were forced to defederate from one another or shut down themselves.

    Simply put, the existing moderation tooling is not adequate for removing illegal content from servers. It’s bad enough to have to jump through hoops dealing with local content, but when it comes to federated data, it’s a whole other ball game.

    The second, equally important aspect is one of user consent. If a user accidentally uploads a sensitive image, or wants to wipe their account off of a server, the instance should make an effort to comply with their wishes. Federated deletions fail sometimes, but an earnest attempt to remove content from a local server should be trivial, and attempting to perform a remote delete is better than nothing.

    I also just want to point out that the knife cuts both ways. Yes, it’s impossible to guarantee nodes you’re federating with aren’t just ignoring remote delete requests. But, there is a benefit to acting in good faith that I think is easy to infer from the CSAM material example the article presents.