I am exploring Lemmy right now and what I see is very worrying to me, but I also don’t understand wth is going on with some instances here. I don’t know if it’s smart to post this, but here we go.
I am partial to Marxist and anarchist ideology, but lemmygrad looks completely unhinged to me. Is it a parody? Some content is fine and some of it is insane.
On the other hand, beehaw looked super inviting from the outside and I even applied to join them. Then, I looked closer and that instance’s moderation looks totalitarian and rigid in the other way. (I understand why they blocked lemmygrad though…)
I’m seeing this impact other communities in different ways and there’s some kind of witch hunt happening on both sides…
I want to interact with people that can respect each-other and that can hold open-minded discussions about any topics without devolving into some tribal war.
Edit:
I realize my post is not a simple question… Let me clarify some thoughs:
-I do not mean beehaw is far-right. The just seem strict and that’s their right.
-I worry profiles can “inherit” the bad reputation of instances they interacted with and get pre-emptively banned.
-People are used to reddit and tend to centralize. Is the “just switch community” really an option?
-English is far from my first language and I might’ve judged things too quickly/harshly so take my criticism with a grain of salt.
You must log in or register to comment.
Lemmygrad is full of unhinged tankies. I just automatically assume anyone posting there is a child, either physically or mentally.
Beehaw have their own rules, and that’s fine. While not my cup of tea, I won’t tell them how to run their instance. I respect those rules when I post to their communities. I particularly enjoy their technology and gaming communities.
Other instances are pretty alright. The vibe on lemmy.world is pretty great, which is why it’s my home instance.
Edit: inb4 this comment also gets brigaded by tankies chomping at the bit to call me a “liberal”
That’s the beauty of the fediverse, a true diversity of opinion.
Reddit and other sites are wary about fringe communities and ideologies, and will ban them if they feel threatened. Just look at /r/ChapoTrapHouse or /r/The_Donald. Regardless of what you think of those groups of people, they have a right to spread their views.
No matter how much you wish to stop the spread of harmful information, it will spread as long as there are people who want it to.
People absolutely do not have a right to push ideologies that harm, dehumanize, or diminish other people.
They do, they just have to deal with people who think their ideas are worthless. You can even make laws against ideas you don’t like, but they’ll be even less effective than drug prohibition. Just look at China for a great example of that.
So in your world it is acceptable for me to say that you’re an evil person for disagreeing with me and should be shot where you stand?
That’s absolutely ridiculous, and actually a crime in a decent number of the countries. And if that’s not what you’re saying I think that you don’t actually know what your free speech maximalism means, because people who believe those things and say those things exist and they want to hurt people.
Yes, what is anyone going to do to stop you? That’s why America has free speech at the very first right defined in the bill of rights.
The fediverse allows anyone to set up their own instances with their own rules and beliefs. It’s simply the consequence of freedom of speech.
Those people and ideas you want to ban will always be there. If you make it so people have to hide them, it just makes it easier for the ideas to spread. It’s better if they are openly criticized and refuted rather than swept under the rug.
Then explain why i cant scream FIRE in a movie theater, or call a mall and tell them I’m going to bomb them, or walk up to someone on the street and say “give me all your money or i’ll blow your brains out”. After all its all just speech isn’t it?
You can, you’ll just face legal consequences for disturbing the peace or threatening others.
Notice how you get in trouble after you say something. The idea that a government can stop you from saying or thinking something is silly. How would you even enforce such a thing?
That’s why the rights in the American’s constitution are considered “inalienable”, because even if there were (illegal) laws made to stop you from saying or thinking something, your right to do so is innate and can never truly be taken from you.
“Yes, what is anyone going to do to stop you? That’s why America has free speech at the very first right defined in the bill of rights”
“You can, you’ll just face legal consequences”
Am I taking crazy pills?
I can share the perspective of why I joined beehaw instead of the other services.
I used to be on the side of free-speech maximalists, but after seeing communities crumble because of toxicity driving out people, I also came to see the same problems with social media that the beehaw folks see.
On anon/pseudo anon places, the social structure to correct anti-social behavior does not exist like in real life. So to create an environment that’s tolerable to the majority of people, you have to isolate and punish the bad actors.
I’m past the age where i want to be spending time on things and places where people are hateful and mean all the time.
Freedom of speech is never freedom of consequence. And if that consequence is that nobody wants to listen to you, well that’s on you.
Freedom of speech is by definition freedom from consequence for speech.
“Yeah you can criticize glorious leader, you have free speech. You’ll just spend the rest of your life unemployable and die/in a gulag”
Nobody is implying that a lack of freedom of speech means they put a gag on your face preventing you from speaking. A lack of freedom of speech means harsh consequences for speech.
Freedom of speech is from consequences from the government. That means you cannot be prosecuted for insulting politicians for example. But you can certainly be sued in civil court for the same thing.
You are 100% incorrect and are confusing the first amendment of the united states with the concept of freedom of speech.
Why is the government special? Are you implying powerful corporations can’t deprive people of rights or oppress people? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this. Are you implying that communities can’t or haven’t shunned people and ruined their lives for saying reasonable or true things? That is very incorrect and there is a mountain of evidence for this.
I’m also new here so I cannot really answer your question. But are you saying Beehaw leans far right? Because I thought they wanted to foster a very welcoming and supportive environment (even disabling downvotes) and I thought they even blocked some instances which are too right for them?
FWIW, I don’t think there are any ‘far right’, or really any right-leaning Lemmy servers at this point. None that I’ve seen, at least.
that’s good to hear 😉
nonono, It’s not that. I haven’t lurked there for very long, but it seemed that they were trigger-happy on bans from what I gathered. I don’t have examples at the moment and the modlog feature doesn’t seem to work well…
Ah got it, ok sorry I misunderstood you. But yes, this sounds believable. As I understand they have a very clear vision what is wrong with social media and believe that only very strict moderation can fix these problems. If this is right or wrong I cannot really say…
It definitely is an interesting and there might be some merit to it. I’m just worried. Let’s say I post in lemmygrad for any reason and then comment something unrelated and neutral on a beehaw post. Will I be silenced because of that first instance’s bad reputation? Maybe I’m thinking too much.
Good question. But I guess only the beehaw admins know the answer to that. But from my understanding so far they would only silence you if you actively spread negativity - but I might be wrong.
