Hello everyone,
Based on the recent instability of Lemmy.world, a lot of people have been wondering whether they should move to another instance.
I used to look at https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list and recommend people to pick a generalist instance with as much users as possible (using the 1m column), usually
- lemm.ee
- sh.itjust.works
- sopuli.xyz
- lemmy.one
- reddthat.com
- etc.
Of course, there are also the regional options
- feddit.de
- lemmy.ca
- aussie.zone
- feddit.nl
- feddit.uk
- midwest.social
- etc.
And of course, the thematic instances
- programming.dev
- lemmy.blahaj.zone
- discuss.tchncs.de
- lemmy.dbzer0.com
- etc.
I used to recommend the most populated instances, as we know that All depends on users subscribed from the instance.
However, now with the introduction of the Lemmy Community Seeder (https://github.com/Fmstrat/lcs), which
tells your instance to pull the top communities and the communities with the top posts from your favorite instances
do you think this should still apply? I have seen promising instances (high uptime, already on 18.4 that was released today)
- discuss.online
- lemmy.ninja
- unilem.org
- etc.
Would you recommend users to join those as well, assuming that the admins use the LCS to populate the All feed? Most of us remember the Vlemmy.net disappearance, and it's difficult to tell users to join small instances based on good faith, but at the same time, every instance needs to start somewhere, and they should be given a chance.
What do you think?
I'm the admin of mine. Why? Because I enjoy doing, it's in the spirit of decentralisation, and I didn't want to risk being part of an instance that defederates from leftist instances like Lemmygrad or Hexbear. I only intend to proactively defederate from fascist and troll instances, and NSFW to reduce legal drama.
"I don't defederate from leftist instances, but do from rightist instances". Okay
Uh, yes?
Just saying it's called biased
Being able to run your own instance with any policies you want is a strength of lemmy.
When you are running a mainstream public service, you should be automatically obliged to uphold every dissenting speech. Otherwise, you will end up effectively censoring free speech
I know instances don't have to technically do that. But the same argument can be said for countries too. Islamic fascist countries like Iran say, "we will run our country whatever way we want", which translates to murdering atheists, homosexuals, non-muslims and apostates, axing every obvious right, etc etc
Hey, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see this as being a 'free speech' issue. This isn't a public service that anyone is obliged to use - it's social media that I'm spending my time and money administering, and I don't want that effort to in any way spread right wing discourse, because I see it as harmful.
Similarly, even if it was a public service that we're talking about, say a national broadcaster, I don't buy into the notion that they should carry 'both sides of the story' out of a sense of 'balance', or upholding 'free speech', if the other side are nutters.
You have to right to do what you want, people criticizing your choices are those who are confused about what free speech really means (hint: it's about the government, it doesn't apply to private entities).
Free speech means they don't arrest you for what you say, it's about the government, not private entities.
Private platforms are free to do what they want, free speech rules don't apply to them.
I have already answered your line of argument in my comment you replied against. I'm not going to repeat it if you can't comprehend
What government is running a Lemmy instance and allowing regular people to make personal accounts?
Any individuals claiming sovereign immunity likely need mental help.
No one wants you alt-right dipshits around and you need to get over it
Ah the classic, braindead namecalling. Always works™️
Imho, the argument doesn't translate to countries. In Iran, the government has a monopoly on governing, and most people can't just hop over to another country with different laws. In effect, you can be stuck with a system you don't like.
In the digital world, and Lemmy in particular, the same is not true. If you have a computer, you can "start a new country" with your own rules. No one is forced to join, and you can't force anyone else to do anything. As a whole, Lemmy allows all opinions. The problem is central power, and free federated software is a solution.
I get that. It's an analogy, so it's not going to be exactly the same particular situation. My point is when MANY BIG instances choose to censor one set of opinions, it's going to stifle free speech. Until the censored people, make and grow their own instance up to the same level of popularity
Alt right being a bunch of shitheads is a fact, not opinion.
That's an opinion too. You are no better
I'm much better than a bunch of alt right shitheads. It's a low bar.
That's another opinion
I agree with that. Big players have too much power. In theory there's nothing that stops us from self-hosting e-mail, but in practice today it takes a lot to make it work and be accepted by the big players. I think free speech is desirable and wish that it was the norm. The best we can do is to use services that align with that ideal, and make sure that the system itself is built so that it is open for anyone to be in control over who they interact with. Even if that means someone choosing to not interact with certain others. As long as it's easy to use an alternative when there are restrictions.
So you're obliging people do something just because you don't like the way they operate? And at the same time call out fascism yet here you are demonstrating yours.
A resouding yes. Why should you not call out and put an end to the way Nazis, Chinese communists, Muslim Brotherhood or KKK operate? Is fighting against violent fascists fascism, in order to clear way for a free and just society?
The irony here is that you are being hypocritical. You want to end Fascism with Fascism. So you're no different than the fascists themselves.
Yes. Because you are just going to start dictating your way of life on them. So you're back to square one with another fascist in power.
If a band of deranged communists came running towards you with weapons, because you don't agree with their idea of establishing the perfect marxist utopia in the whole world, what would you do? Sit there and try to negotiate with them? They are too brainwashed for even a single rational conversation. By sitting there helplessly, you are making their job easier for them
By your logic, the Allies shouldn't ever have fought wars against the Nazis. They should just have went to some "international peacekeeping organisation"
I like the way you think. So who gets to decide the bad guy here?