You must log in or register to comment.
I would like to wish all the social media oligarchs a kindly fuck right off.
Seriously if I wanted shitty ass social media I would still have a Twitter and Facebook account.
Tom is the real hero. Dude knows how to shut the fuck up.
I was just thinking that after I made the comment. Like be like Tom, y’all.
Who?
what
WHO?
whoosh
He doesn’t need to know.
Ugh, no, please. No more sketchy freeze-peach-absolutist techbros talking about the fediverse, please and thank you.
I dont want billionaires getting involved either but its probably to lemmys advantage to have some control over the narrative
My issue there is that I don’t see a realm in which a billionaire talks about FOSS tech without trying to predate on it. There is no advantage on the people’s side when a billionaire’s involved unless the billionaire conveniently turns up missing.
Wow! He really got one of the short usernames reserved for founders on that platform too.
Jack reposted this description of Lemmy as wellI wonder why this person has an issue with… too much choice? I find it hard to relate to that mentality, despite being very busy with work and family myself.
I think this, especially the second issue, is something the Fediverse (Lemmy in particular) will have to work through at some point.
If Reddit bans a subreddit on a controversial subject, it’s banned, it’s gone. But if a Lemmy instance defederates with another instance for hosting controversial content, you just find another instance that doesn’t.
I think the real issue is with federation in general and the creation of bubbles: there is a certain subset of users who just want full federation and full visibility, including sites that host lolicon, fascism, and other problematic content. Even if they aren’t, say, fascists themselves, but just free-speech absolutists. The issue is that any instance that doesn’t defederate with, say, Fascist instances, is tainted, either by association (“this instance refused to defederate from fascist instances, so we’re defederating from them too”) or because problem users are attracted to it (“people in our comment sections from this instance have been defending fascism, so we’re defederating to keep them out”).
And there really isn’t a good solution to the issue, aside from hosting your own tiny client-only server.
This has been the dynamic on Mastodon for years now, and I don’t think it is really a problem. Framing the problem itself as “free speech” vs. “censorship” itself is often used as a fascist canard when it is really a matter of the freedom of association. Communities choose who to associate with and who not to associate with. Moderation, to prevent harassment and abuse, to keep the discussion on topic, to remove illegal content, is a very NORMAL thing. It starts with small tools like temp-bans from communities, and increases in scale to permanent bans from instances, or de-federation if an instance proves to be a continuous torrent of abuse.
There are a lot of cases of genuine censorship which take place on commercial platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit, but these “free speech extremists” are always more concerned about whether or not they can use slurs and spew blood libel than they are about what happened to r/BlueLeaks.
