This is in regard to Lemmy.world blocking piracy communities from other instances. This post is not about whether you agree with the decision. It's about how the admins informed their users.

A week ago Lemmy.world announced their Discord server. This wasn't very well received (about 25% downvotes, which is rather bad compared to other announcements). The comments on that post were turned off, presumably to avoid backlash.

Before that, announcements about the instance used to be posted to !lemmyworld@lemmy.world. This time, the information was posted on the Discord server instead.

I don't agree with this. Having to use a proprietary platform to participate in an open-source one goes against the very purpose for me, especially when the new solution isn't really an improvement (as before the information about the platform was closer to it).

Edit: Corrected the announcements community name.

Update: Lemmy.world finally released an announcement and promised they would inform about similar actions and gather feedback in advance in future.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] joe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I know reading comprehension isn't much valued in some political circles, but I didn't say what you think I said, so I'm not sure you really mean "agreed".

Some moderation is required because an honest dialog cannot happen if all parties don't feel safe. This is not the same as "no moderation", but it's also not the same as what you pretended I said, which is "heavy moderation". I don't understand why you think this discussion in any way translates to a government, but generally speaking, the US government has less ability to "censor" than a non-government entity.

And, as I already alluded to, the result of lax moderation is bigotry and hate, every time. If I had to pick between heavy moderation or voat, and to be clear, I don't have to make that choice because there is nuance allowed, then I'd pick heavy moderation over a site infested with redhats and the like.