[HN Gopher] Lemmy: A Federated Reddit Alternative ___________________________________________________________________ Lemmy: A Federated Reddit Alternative Author : fintler Score : 116 points Date : 2022-11-15 21:10 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (lemmy.ml) (TXT) w3m dump (lemmy.ml) | seanalltogether wrote: | So is each lemmy instance just a full standalone clone of the | full reddit feature set? And multiple instances will all have the | same duplicate communities? For example. | https://beehaw.org/c/technology | https://lemmy.ml/c/technology | | Am I gonna just see a bunch of duplicate content if I've joined | multiple servers? | BeetleB wrote: | From the Lemmy docs: | | > On Lemmy you're able to subscribe to communities on any other | server, and can have discussions with users registered | elsewhere. | least wrote: | If you're comparing it to reddit, it'd just be like subscribing | to two subreddits with similar topics. It's moderated by | different people so the rules change but the links might be | about the same thing. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | So, exactly how long before shills and bots are cross | pollinating some paid for narrative on all the technology | subs using the same script? | | "Hmm, almost all of r/technology is against nuclear, that | informs my personal view point a little... "hmm, every one of | these technology reddit-likes is against nuclear, I guess | everyone agrees and I should too". | | I am aware that this is not a bug to Reddit, it is the reason | they are looking at an IPO, is a very in-demand feature to be | able to shape narratives. | | I look forward to seeing how a federated Reddit deals with | narrative pushing. | ranger_danger wrote: | this is basically how matrix's federation works. every | homeserver has its own copy of any room that any of its users | are on, regardless of what server owns/created the room | originally, they all keep in sync with each other to merge | messages in from the other homeservers. you can also create | local-only, homeserver-specific channels if desired. | kuramitropolis wrote: | Anyone got a standalone ActivityPub _client_? Couldn 't find one. | The protocol is intended to cover both server/server federation | and client/server fetching of updates, correct? | rootusrootus wrote: | Does it have the same mastodon problem of separate namespaces? | I'm having a tough time getting enthusiastic about federated | social media that has disjoint namespaces. Is there no way to | have a federated-but-shared namespace so I don't have to lose my | username when an instance shuts down? | pphysch wrote: | Isn't that the point of federation? That there is not a | centralized (naming/identity) authority? | riffic wrote: | but I want everyone to perform the same landgrab for handles | every time a new service comes along. Don't worry about where | ambiguities exist, it'll be handled via first comes first | serve, trademark law, or just by reselling names on the black | market /s | lifty wrote: | Unfortunately the only way to achieve that in the fediverse is | by hosting your own instance, or at the minimum using your own | domain and having someone manage the instance for you. | riffic wrote: | that's a feature, not a bug! | | one shared namespace is problematic for _reasons_. You can | figure email though, right? | | DNS is a _solved problem_ and we 're never going to see | anything better come along because DNS has survived the test of | time (see the Lindy Effect - DNS is old, crusty, and like the | _Art of War_ or Shakespeare, it 's worth learning). | meltedcapacitor wrote: | That argument works better if 1 user = 1 domain rather the | mastodon model where users are under a random domain they | have no control of. | | (In passing, using top level domains as user id may be a good | idea in some cases. In tech communities the friction may be | bearable.) | riffic wrote: | I prefer to place emphasis where _content is produced_ | rather than who _consumes_ content. | swores wrote: | Is this gpt-3, or have you just coincidentally written 3 | paragraphs that seem, at a glance, relevant and on-subject | but that actually are saying nothing at all? | riffic wrote: | You can _ask_ specifically what isn 't clear and we could | discuss that particular topic for clarification. | | I assume you aren't familiar with the Lindy effect though | and I apologize for making an arcane reference: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect | swores wrote: | Sorry, it genuinely looked machine generated to me. After | posting I went to look at your profile and realised you | are a real person, but you'd already replied by the time | I tried to delete my comment. | | OK then: | | > "that's a feature, not a bug! one shared namespace is | problematic for _reasons_. " | | Is just saying "I'm right you're wrong and I refuse to | explain why". | | > "You can figure email though, right?" | | Are you saying that being able to understand email means | one should find the benefit to separate namespaces in | social media? Or that email is everyone's definition of | perfect and so everything should be like it? Or something | else, considering it took me a bit of guessing to even | think of those first two explanations? | | > DNS is a _solved problem_ | | First, are you suggesting DNS is 100% perfect at what it | does and nobody could ever have any complaint about it? | Second, it's not clear to me how it being a solved | problem for what it currently does means it's necessarily | the right approach for any new uses? I need to get a tire | on my car replaced tomorrow, and I really hope they don't | tell me "you don't need a new tire, you need DNS - | haven't you heard, it's a _solved problem_ ". | | I'm genuinely not trying to be sarcastic I just don't | understand any argument you're trying to make. | [deleted] | bredren wrote: | I agree it is confusing for products intended to be global, | networked and hyper social to have overlapping usernames. | | People expect and understand username exclusivity. | | I rarely think of a distributed ledger as the useful answer for | something, but I wonder if there are other ways a social | network like lemmy or toot toot could agree on something like | this. | cyborgx7 wrote: | That sounds like it would get rid of a significant portion of | what makes federation worthwhile. I see this request a lot, so | I'm sure it has merit to a decent amount of people, but I can't | help but feel like the people requesting it are simply missing | the entire point of the thing. It feels like people are so | captured by the way centralized walled gardens work, they can't | even conceive of a world without them. | yogthos wrote: | I keep seeing this repeated over and over every time the | discussion of the Fediverse comes up, but I don't actually see | this being a problem in practice. | | It's perfectly fine if the network consists of a bunch of | loosely connected islands without the ability to propagate | information across the entire network because there is a | limited number of people you can interact with meaningfully. | Federation favors smaller communities where the interactions | are more personal while still facilitation interaction between | different communities. | | Even a centralized site like reddit is ultimately broken down | into subreddits because nobody wants to see all of reddit all | at once. | encryptluks2 wrote: | This is an issue because people want social media to be an | identity that they control. Suggesting it is fine to lose | your identity and all the work you spent building connections | whenever an instance shuts down is nonsense. People are | looking for reasons to move away from Twitter, not for more | reasons to stay on Twitter. Federated identity is something | that can be added but Mastodon doesn't have something like | this to the best of my knowledge. | riffic wrote: | some identities are not directly yours to control, but are | roles assigned to you by your membership in a group. | | Employment, for example. | | Luckily good orgs use directories to manage membership | (LDAP, etc). | | What I'm thinking about here is something like my | particular city (Los Angeles) delegating social media | accounts to people involved in government, like city | council members or spokespeople in certain departments | (LAFD? you get the picture). | | https://riffic.rocks/city-hall-on-the-fedi/ | encryptluks2 wrote: | Federation implies that users identity should not be tied | to a single instance but that they should be able to | access their account from any federated instance. | [deleted] | erisian wrote: | I'm not sure this is a huge issue if you set up user | expectations adequately. Just like JoeAsshole@gmail.com isn't | the same account as JoeAsshole@hotmail.com. | | A workable alternative would be using a pubkey fingerprint with | an mutable display name, but who wants to help their family | sort that out? | [deleted] | scrumper wrote: | Grumpy old man mode: we had this! It's called Usenet. | encryptluks2 wrote: | I'd love for a revamped Usenet service for mailing lists but it | really isn't a social media replacement. | fleddr wrote: | One thing is for sure, it really is fast. | | My most fascinating discovery is the public Modlog: | https://lemmy.ml/modlog | | What a spectacularly bad idea to show it in the open, but | educational nonetheless. It very much resembles Reddit | moderation, on steroids. | | People are banned for typing 3 sentences (too long!), "repeated | anti-communism", ....insert laundry list of other bullshit | reasons...and get this: admins can simply wipe out an entire | community at will. I'm not sure if that means it doesn't federate | or simply stops working. | | In any case, massive power trip vibes. | [deleted] | f38zf5vdt wrote: | > _Be HN user_ | | > _Want alternative to Reddit that doesn 't have the clout of | centrist mainstream media influencing it_ | | > _Find Lemmy, open source and free to use_ | | > _Lemmy is developed by political extremists that operate | outside of centrist mainstream media_ | | > _Political extremists are on the wrong side_ | | > _Exclaim_ "Looks like a no for me. But I appreciate the | effort." | | FWIW There are a number of right wing extremist Lemmy instances | (https://wolfballs.com/, https://ovarit.com/, previously | https://thedonald.win). | matai_kolila wrote: | Not that I think these folks want mainstream appeal, but if you | want mainstream appeal, stop federating stuff! Nobody cares about | privacy and control over their own information nearly as much as | privacy advocates think they do, and if even one thing is | slightly harder as a result, people will simply never adopt your | tool or technology. | rnd0 wrote: | What's so great about mainstream appeal? These services are | designed for folks who do care about those issues, and the | folks who are mainstream already have outlets catering to them. | I don't see them flocking over if Lemmy is dumbed-down. | | As usual when chasing "mass adoption" I think that the target | demographic would simply be chased off and the project with | wither on the vine. | matai_kolila wrote: | If you're billing yourself as a "Reddit Alternative", you | definitely care about mainstream appeal. | ryanianian wrote: | > stop federating stuff | | Another conclusion: Federation alone isn't enough of a selling | point. Federation must also be a key unlocker of other | features. Perhaps more branded/tailored sites for different | audience segments but which can feed into each other in | meaningful ways might be one way to pitch it. But dropping | federation entirely is throwing out the baby with the | bathwater. | ElemenoPicuares wrote: | I agree that getting rid of federation is not the answer. | However, it will be little more than a source of neato | developer projects as long as new projects try to get users | to think about it, let alone understand it, nevermind | actually _needing_ to understand it to use a product to its | full potential. | | People who don't care about federation, conceptually, will | never care about federation, even if it yields tangible | benefits they care about otherwise. They will prioritize user | experience, interface, branding appeal, reliability and speed | of operations like finding people in-app, and all of that | other stuff that FOSS social media, and many other types of | FOSS projects, de-prioritize. That is why FOSS alternatives | are still alternatives despite being free, and largely | technically superior. | | The disconnect is rooted in differing perspectives. | Developers, naturally, use more sophisticated means of | evaluating software than end users, much the way | nutritionists evaluate food. We consider interfaces and user | experiences to be means of interacting with software, and | consider the software on a whole, yielding only so much | weight to usability. Since software plays such a huge part of | our lives, spending a little time wrangling it doesn't seem | onerous. | | To _nearly all end users_ , the interface/experience _is_ the | software. Even people who do care about federation | conceptually may not even be willing to deal with admin > 0 | for their social media accounts. It's not ideal, but it's | reality. Federation hardly matters more to them than HTTP/2 | does. Trying to use it as a selling point for general | audience software is a failing strategy. So who cares? Social | media is a hell of a lot more useful with a critical mass of | users... other users are what make it "social," rather than | merely "media." | | If developers are nutritionists, designers are chefs. | Calculating proper nutrition to keep us alive and functioning | is arguably more important to making food delicious and | enriching our sensual lives. But if you take a large group of | people and offer them their choice of food either constructed | by nutritionists or constructed by chefs, the chefs will win | every time. Many of the nutritionists will be mystified by | people's lack of ability to prioritize critical body | functioning over beautiful sensual experiences. | | (When I was in culinary school, a fellow student was a | career-changing nutritionist saying she was becoming a chef | because she was tired of "being the bad guy taking away all | the things people loved.) | | The key is actively enfranchising people who specialize in | knowing what users want. Spending an afternoon in Gimp making | a punny logo is not branding. Customizable color themes are | not UX. | [deleted] | mikae1 wrote: | This post should be edited to link to https://join-lemmy.org | [deleted] | s1mon wrote: | Is there some connection to Motorhead or is that just in my | brain? | sidpatil wrote: | https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/about/about.html | | Bottom of page. | kmeisthax wrote: | Aaand the first thing I see is a thread about Afghanistan full of | tankies. God damn it. | 1MachineElf wrote: | I feel this sentiment, but I also hope that being federated | means more instances will crop up that have different | demographics. | jevgeni wrote: | Also, russia apologists and very dubious sources. Weirdly, an | experience that is very unlike Mastodon for me. | [deleted] | alexb_ wrote: | The admins are _literal_ marxists (I do mean literal, check the | admin profiles), and have designed the technology wanting "to | make it very difficult for racist trolls to use the most updated | version of Lemmy." https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/622 | | This of course is not necessarily a reason to avoid the | underlying technology, but it may be something to consider. | Gordonjcp wrote: | The real Lemmy wouldn't have a rude word filter. He'd let you | use the rude word, and if you got punched in the mouth for | using it he'd use that as a teachable moment. | | Be more Lemmy. | mikae1 wrote: | So pick another instance[1] or start your own? That's how | federation works. | | [1] https://join-lemmy.org/instances | mistermann wrote: | Having ideological censorship baked into the base system seems | like not an optimal approach. | notsrg wrote: | Kind of a self report if your ideology depends on using | slurs, don't you think? | YurgenJurgensen wrote: | serverholic wrote: | [deleted] | kelseyfrog wrote: | It's a good opportunity to tear down one's filter bubble and | venture outside their personal echo chamber. | riffic wrote: | more power to them. | ttpphd wrote: | Why | striking wrote: | https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/816#issuecomment-6446... | | > Edit: This comment was written at a time when Lemmy the | software was practically identical with the lemmy.ml instance. | At that time we barely had any moderation tools, so it was an | easy way to keep some groups of users off the instance. Now its | different, there are good mod tools, and many different | instances. So we removed the slur filter in Lemmy 0.14.0 | (instance admins can optionally configure one, which lemmy.ml | does). | | The comment was edited Nov 2021 to include this new context. | throwaway8689 wrote: | 'Federated Reddit' seems like a revival of the old BBSs. | | Hard-coding slur filters sounds like the work of Sisyphus though. | ubertaco wrote: | Genuine question about both this and Mastodon, since both have | the same "decentralized, join/start the instance that fits your | interests" fundamental principle: isn't this just exacerbating | the filter-bubble effect that cranks up polarization? | | Like, is it really a great thing for mending societal bridges | that folks can choose between a server for leftists or a server | for hard-right folks and that split ensures that one never | interacts with the other? Is it really no longer possible to have | conversations happen between folks that disagree, to the point | that we want to ensure that there's no chance for such | conversations ever to happen, even by accident? | pessimizer wrote: | > isn't this just exacerbating the filter-bubble effect that | cranks up polarization? | | I don't think that the goals of these software products are to | reduce political polarization. What does the telephone do to | reduce political polarization? | pluc wrote: | fleddr wrote: | The really painful thing is that probably 80% of people are | quite reasonable but on social media the extremes on both sides | dominate conversation. Extreme toxicity as well as extreme | fragility are the norm. | | Extremity is highly engaging and richly rewarded, hence | maximizing polarization has become an incentive on its own. | "normal" users have been exposed to this discourse for several | years now, and may have internalized it. | gilded-lilly wrote: | It is only possible as long as one side is able to have civil | discourse, without labeling/demonizing/name calling and | violently attacking their opponents. It's quite hard to have a | debate when people's views are not only completely entrenched, | they are simply not willing to give respect at all. | rnd0 wrote: | small correction; it's only possible if both sides are | capable and willing to set aside heated rhetoric. At this | point in time, I honestly question if any of the sides are | capable of honest engagement. | gilded-lilly wrote: | I think civil discourse is possible if reasonable debate is | allowed. Unfortunately, for one side, it appears that | reason itself is problematic for them and they refuse it. | fleddr wrote: | This is called being part of the problem. My side is | fine. | rnd0 wrote: | That can describe both the left and the right. I'd be | very surprised if you weren't alluding to SJWs; but at | the same time you're describing Qanon folks as well. | | ...and that's why we can't have discourse. No one can | agree on what constitutes "reasonable debate". | gilded-lilly wrote: | Well, you're conflating a fringe movement of radical | conspiracy theorists with the average person who doesn't | go along with the woke agenda. That in itself is an | example of what I'm talking about. | capableweb wrote: | Eh. Some people want bubbles, let them, you can't force people | to do something they don't want to do. | | Personally I run my own Mastodon instance for myself and | federate with everything, left or right, I don't care. I block | stuff for myself that is illegal in my country, but I like | reading about opinions I don't necessarily agree with. | throwaway742 wrote: | You are right, but subreddits have the same issue. It doesn't | seem markedly worse than what it is attempting to replace. | goodpoint wrote: | > isn't this just exacerbating the filter-bubble effect that | cranks up polarization | | It's the opposite. When people are aware of the bias of their | sources the filter-bubble effect cease to exist. | | The whole problem with the filter bubble is that people are | unaware of the existing biases. | | It's surprising how people don't understand this... | joshlemer wrote: | Well in practice I don't think that the typical outcome would | be partitioning users by interest. In email, we don't have that | for the most part, instead people choose the provider that | provides the service they like the most, with some exception. | SilverBirch wrote: | I think we really need to interrogate this idea that filter | bubbles are a bad thing. Some of the biggest negatives of | twitter (and positive in terms of engagement) is that you have | these groups that are opposed, and then a tweet from one bubble | goes viral in another causing a war between bubbles. The exact | same issue with brigading on reddit. Maybe we should trust | people a little more, let people who agree have a space to | agree and discuss their shared goals, interests and ideas, and | then trust them enough to know that if they want to hear | opposing views they know where to go. | fleddr wrote: | That is fine, but the existence of a bubble on Twitter is | often defined by having a common external enemy. That's what | the participants inside the bubble have in common, and very | often not much else. | | They aren't necessarily deep friends, these bubble people. | Move such a bubble to friendly territory where there is only | peace, and many will fall apart. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | > and then trust them enough to know that if they want to | hear opposing views they know where to go. | | Sounds great. But remind me from where all this brigading, | canceling, preventing speech, and censorship is coming from. | [deleted] | rnd0 wrote: | It's a good thing to create an enviroment that is safe from | 4chan-style brigading, yes. | | >Is it really no longer possible to have conversations happen | between folks that disagree, | | At this point? No -because neither side can agree on common | references; the left get their news from one set of news | outlets and the far right get their news from qanon or whatever | facebook fringe groups. | | It's impossible to have a conversation if you cannot even agree | on basic language or common references. | | With their being fewer and fewer genuinely left-of-center | outlets it becomes necessary for people to be able to build | enclaves that won't be shitposted into oblivion (see also: | reddit with the_donald and other brigading subs) | barbazoo wrote: | The way I think about it is that it allows for self-regulation | the way it happens in real life too. In real life you can't go | into someone's neighborhood meeting and harass people, you'd | get kicked out and you wouldn't be welcome going forward. The | same way servers can cut ties with other servers. Someone here | explained it much better than me but the idea that everybody | should have an opportunity to be heard by everyone just isn't | realistic and isn't what we do in non-virtual communication. | Federation allows to facilitate that. | dangond wrote: | This is exactly the problem I've had with Twitter as a social | platform. The network is simply too big to the point that | it's strange to me that the default means of posting is to | literally everyone using the platform. Smaller discord | communities I've been in rarely get into flame wars as often | as people on Twitter since they tend to already be a self- | selected group of like-minded people. Putting people with | wildly different views in front of each other and | incentivizing "hot takes" via like and retweet counters is | very much the opposite of a healthy social environment. | fleddr wrote: | This analogy in part breaks down because in the digital | space, such "bans" don't require any substance. | | If in the physical space you'd ban somebody from ever joining | your meeting or neighborhood again, you need to have some | type of probably cause. Something really bad must have | happened. | | Meanwhile in the digital space: banned for life because your | comment was too long. Don't believe me? Watch: | | https://lemmy.ml/modlog | Vrondi wrote: | It is my understanding that no matter which server you sign up | on, you can follow people on every other federated server. So, | it doesn't much matter what political stance each server | officially takes, because the bubbles are connected. | BeetleB wrote: | Except with Mastodon, where your server can blacklist whole | servers if those servers contain undesirables. | 5560675260 wrote: | It's not great, but on a centralised alternative administration | will take a side and some groups will be pushed out completely. | Unless, of course, such platform will commit to being a public | square, but reddit isn't that. | | Federation offers at least some hope of cross-pollination. | phailhaus wrote: | It seems like a user's best move is to find the Lemmy instance | with the most users and most active community, because nobody | wants to deal with figuring out "which instance has the best | subreddit for X". So this sounds like it just results in Reddit, | again, with extra steps. | yogthos wrote: | Social media has come to play an important role in our society. | It's a way for people to get news and to discuss it with their | peers as well as a tool for education. For better or worse, | social media has become an invaluable tool and an integral part | of our society. | | It's important to remember who owns corporate platforms and whose | interests they ultimately represent. These are not neutral and | unbiased channels that allow for the free flow of information. | The content on these sites is carefully curated. Views and | opinions that are unpalatable to the owners of these platforms | are often suppressed, and sometimes outright banned. | | Some examples include Facebook banning antifascist pages[1] and | Twitter banning left-wing accounts during the midterm elections | in US[2]. When the content that the user produce does not fit | with the interests of the platform then it often gets removed and | communities end up being destroyed. | | Another problem is that user data constitutes a significant | source of revenue for corporate social media platforms. The | information collected about the users, and it can reveal a lot | more about the individual than most people realize. It's possible | for the owners of the platforms to identify users based on the | address of the device they're using, see their location, who they | interact with, and so on. This creates a comprehensive profile of | the person along with the network of individuals whom they | interact with. This information is often shared with the | affiliates of the platform as well as government entities. | | It's clear that commercial platforms do not respect user privacy, | nor are the users in control of their content. Users are just a | product that the owners of the platform sell to their actual | customers who mine personal data. | | Platforms like Lemmy and Mastodon are developed in the open | making it possible to tell how they work internally. These | platforms explicitly avoid tracking users and collecting their | data. Not only are these platforms better at respecting user | privacy, they also tend to provide a better user experience | without annoying ads, analytics, and other garbage. | | Another interesting aspect of the Fediverse is that it promotes | collaboration. Traditional commercial platforms like Facebook, | Twitter, and Youtube have no incentive to allow users to move | data between them. They directly compete for users in a zero sum | game and go out of their way to make it difficult to share | content across them. This is the reason we often see screenshots | from one site being posted on another. | | On the other hand, a federated network that's developed in the | open and largely hosted non-profit results in a positive-sum game | environment. Users joining any of the platforms on the network | help grow the entire network. | | Having many different sites hosted by individuals was the way the | internet was intended to work in the first place, it's actually | quite impressive how corporations took the open network of the | internet and managed to turn it into a series of walled gardens. | Only when we own the platforms that we use will we be free to | post our thoughts and ideas without having to worry about them | being censored or manipulated by corporate interests. | | No matter how great a commercial platform might be, sooner or | later it's going to either disappear or change in a way that | doesn't suit you because companies must constantly chase profit | in order to survive. This is a bad situation to be in as a user | since you have little control over the evolution of a platform. | | On the other hand, open source has a very different dynamic. | Projects can survive with little or no commercial incentive | because they're developed by people who themselves benefit from | their work. Projects can also be easily forked and taken in | different directions by different groups of users if there is a | disagreement regarding the direction of the platform. Even when | projects become abandoned, they can be picked up again by new | teams as long as there is an interested community of users around | them. | | It's time for people to get serious about owning our tools and | start using communication platforms built by the people and for | the people. Let's get back to making the internet work the way it | was intended to work. | | [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/08/20/facebook-bans- | antifascis... | | [2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account- | ba... | 2kwatts wrote: | jsnell wrote: | Previously on HN: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28453165 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31712332 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33438493 | sedatk wrote: | There's also a fully decentralized (P2P) Reddit alternative | called Aether: https://getaether.net/ | [deleted] | twobitshifter wrote: | Individual low-membership subreddits are usually much better than | the frontpage, but for these subs - what's the benefit of | federation? An obscure topic will need a large baseline community | to pull from to get a quorum for conversation. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | I think the benefit is a preemptive transition onto a more | consensual platform where you are the owner-operator who can | adjust the rules and mechanics instead of a tenant to an | exploitative behemoth who can ruin your community without even | noticing it. | chrisan wrote: | is there an example of a low membership sub the GP was | referring to thats been ruined? | forgotmypw17 wrote: | Any good sub will grow with time. | | The bigger it is, the more difficult it is to move off your | tenant platform. | | And as time passes, you are more likely to want something | which your tenant platform does not offer. | | Maybe it is a different style of displaying images. Maybe | it is a different way of defending against bots and spam. | Maybe it is easier reporting of spam by users. | | Whatever it is, a platform with a user:operator ratio of | over a million will probably not have the resources to | accommodate you. | djbusby wrote: | > Note: Federation is still in active development | | And here's the repos https://github.com/LemmyNet | | It looks like ActivityPub | [deleted] | dewfaced wrote: | "A community of leftist privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by | Lemmy's developers" | | Looks like a no for me. But I appreciate the effort. | r721 wrote: | It's Mastodon-like, so there exist right-wing instances too: | https://wolfballs.com/ (possibly NSFW) | laputan_machine wrote: | Can't we just have a place where we discuss things without | bringing in the latest political talking point? Maybe I'm | mis-remembering, maybe it's rose-tinted glasses, but I | honestly can't remember it being like this on forums back in | the day. | | I don't remember _any_ political discuss on the various warez | forums I was on (nxsecure anyone?). Flame wars were a thing, | no doubt, but it wasn't this already formed opinion where | you've picked a side and now anyone on the other side is a | bad guy. It is completely bizarre. | Barrin92 wrote: | online forums for piracy given the demographics they tend | to attract rarely ever had much political debate. if you've | ever attended a CCC thouch or any other anarchist/hacker | space they were always political, mostly left leaning. | | pretending this is news reminds me of Paul Ryan being | shocked that Rage Against the Machine didn't like him. I | also will point out that your very own profile page here | features a link to a political manifesto | pndy wrote: | > but I honestly can't remember it being like this on | forums back in the day. | | It wasn't like this but then the Internet wasn't still that | much widespread as today. Social media boom really opened | it to the masses but also bring political polarization | which really bloomed in last ~10 years. | | Twenty years ago I wouldn't imagine that in the nearest | future we'll have communities on the Internet ruled and | divided by political views. That we'll need to self-censor | what and in what form we want to say to others under the | risk of the instant ban. I didn't expect either that we'll | need to agree to "codes of conduct" - netiquette and forums | rules were enough for most of the time. | | Back then I hoped we'll have virtual assistants connected | to vast databases, that we'll met in the virtual worlds | with photo-realistic avatars, that technology would blend | indistinguishably with our environment, and that would | connect us into one global village. And instead we got | bubbled social networks with yelling influencers and ads, | tracking on every corner of the web. Bleh. | dpkirchner wrote: | I think you can thank heavy-handed moderation for the lack | of political discussions on forums back in the day. | superfrank wrote: | I don't think that's all of it. Politics has continually | gotten more polarizing over the 20 or so years. I don't | think this is the worst it's ever been in the US, but it | definitely seems like the Trump era is the worst it's | been since mass adoption of the internet. Because of | things like 24 hour news networks and social media, we're | also reminded of our differences much more frequently | than we used to be. | | I think politics is just a bigger part of peoples' lives | now and we're seeing that play out in real life as well | as in internet communities. | josteink wrote: | I can assure you we had no moderators dealing with the | kind of political nonsense we have today back in the days | when I was a regular at the Something awful, Fark, | Jpopmusic or XDA forums. | | People were just out to have a good time, have a laugh or | get together over something they loved. | | People seemingly don't seem to be as good at that these | days. | TylerE wrote: | Maybe because they finally realized that ignoring the | unignorable is a losing strategy? | | It's like the people who bitch about their HOA all the | time but never go to a meeting or even know who the board | members are. | josteink wrote: | > Maybe because they finally realized that ignoring the | unignorable is a losing strategy? | | Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't fully understand this | comment. | | What is unignorable? Politics? I can ignore it just fine | when I consider it not an appropriate subject. And a | losing strategy? For what? | | Why does every arena have to be about picking a fight, | rather than finding common ground? Why try to increase | the divide in our society? | | I just don't get this mentality. | TylerE wrote: | Not picking a fight isn't the same as pretending | something doesn't exist. | JoshTriplett wrote: | > What is unignorable? Politics? I can ignore it just | fine when I consider it not an appropriate subject. | | It's easier to ignore something that largely ignores you. | It becomes impossible to ignore something when half the | people in it consider your existence an affront to their | sensibilities, and those people are inexplicably being | listened to. | | > Why does every arena have to be about picking a fight, | rather than finding common ground? | | There exists no common ground when people think other | people shouldn't exist. If all those people stop having | any influence on the world, perhaps the rest can | successfully seek common ground and have reasonable | policy discussions. | micromacrofoot wrote: | Back in the day was an unusually peaceful time for much of | the world... people would instead get in heated battles | about stupid bullshit like game consoles and operating | systems. | | Things were different before, and it seems things are | becoming different again. | rnd0 wrote: | >Can't we just have a place where we discuss things without | bringing in the latest political talking point? | | Not since Arab Spring or rather shortly thereafter. I'm not | sure if there was a ramp-up of "active measures" style | agitation, "cointelpro" style group antagonism or what the | exact mechanism was. But any way you slice it, it has | become increasingly impossible for competing groups within | the same sphere to communicate much less for their to be a | dialog between the left and right. | | No one can dialog with anybody else because the people | upstairs want it that way! | [deleted] | vehemenz wrote: | "Back then" the Internet was disproportionately populated | by educated people--college students, academics, engineers, | and the professional class. Disenfranchised people were not | using the Internet on their phones during their breaks. | r721 wrote: | I think some instances are politically neutral, but Lemmy | is a much smaller network than Mastodon, and those | instances have like a few posts/month. | time_to_smile wrote: | Another problem is that nearly everyone's "political" views | have been reduced to just talking points and strange | dogmatic behavior. | | As a counter example consider someone who could no longer | exist online even if he, sadly, had not passed: Erik Naggum | | Erik certainly expressed political views in many of his | comments, but at the same time it's very hard to box his | thinking into any mainstream political narrative. I think | today he would be both unwelcome on Twitter and HN or any | more conservative sites. Erik represents a lot of what I | remember and miss about earlier forums: strongly held | _personal_ beliefs that don 't fit into any one particular | bucket. | | Individuals having diverse views within their own system of | beliefs is what allowed us to have meaningful political | discussions in the past because 3 people could talk about 3 | different topics and the group could reasonably be split 2 | vs 1 on all topics with completely different splits each | time. | olivermuty wrote: | I think that is also largely colored by the fact that one | <<side>> in modern US politics is objectively literally a | collection of <<bad guys>>. It makes it a bit hard to have | serious political discourse when one of the sides is | seeemingly trying to burn the house down rather than lose. | | Also there was a ton of political stuff in the bush era as | well. My theory is that you just dont remember it because | there was still a solid foundation of political decorum and | respect on both sides at that time. | | Disclaimer: I am not american. | josteink wrote: | > the _fact_ that one <<side>> in modern US politics is | _objectively literally_ a collection of <<bad guys>> | | None of those emphasised words means what you think they | mean. | | The fact that some people have been radicalized to | believe stuff like this is more likely the root of the | problems we're having today. | | In that regard your comment is what I would objectively | consider a bad comment on HN (and against the site | guidelines too), but it was still useful in the broader | sense of the discussion. | eclipxe wrote: | olivermuty is right. | BeetleB wrote: | > It makes it a bit hard to have serious political | discourse when one of the sides is seeemingly trying to | burn the house down rather than lose. | | Your parent is asking for a place where there is little | to no political discussion, not a place to have | meaningful political discussion. | | With the good old phpBB forums, they'd often dedicate one | subforum for political/flamebait content, and it was | allowed only in there. As a user, you simply didn't read | that subforum if you didn't care for it. | | Specifically, on those forums, you had to _actively seek_ | those venues to have these discussions. Today it seems | you have to work to _avoid_ these discussions. | [deleted] | kelseyfrog wrote: | It's a great chance to step out of one's filter bubble. Take it | as an opportunity to widen perspectives and exchange ideas that | normally wouldn't be exchanged. | least wrote: | The problem is that places that cater to a specific political | demographic tend to not tolerate exchanges of ideas, even if | they are civil. It's very difficult to intentionally create a | community that allows for discourse from wildly varying | viewpoints where people feel comfortable sharing their point | of view. | zmmmmm wrote: | yep ... I immediately saw about 5 articles that looked like | straight up russian propaganda about Ukraine on the front | page and was quite challenged about whether I wanted to read | them or not. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | Agree! Where else am I going to engage with far left | moderators and tech people? I mean; there is only everywhere, | but I'm already existing there. | drbeast wrote: | So insufferable reddit moderators just moved to their own | playground? | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Sounds like hell | Pr0ject217 wrote: | Interesting choice by them... I'm tired of politics. | mikae1 wrote: | So pick another instance[1] or start your own? That's how | federation works. | | [1] https://join-lemmy.org/instances | joshlemer wrote: | It's just too bad that the flagship instance of Lemmy (lemmy.ml) | is full of literal hardline Marxists and Soviet Union | nostalgics/apologists. Totally insufferable. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Isn't the whole point of federation that you can simply spin up | your own instance? | joshlemer wrote: | Yes, but all the non-communist servers, combined, have an | active user base of like 100. | kelseyfrog wrote: | Um, recruit some more users? This is a good opportunity to | take personal responsibility and individual accountability | for a problem as you see it. | | The first thing people need to learn about stoicism is that | you can't change other people as much as you want to. Make | peace with this and do things that are in your control. | jevgeni wrote: | You must see the contradiction in this comment, no? | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Why do I have to do that? How is that something I'm | responsible for? I don't own those instances and I don't | like the existing users. | | I'm going to just keep using Facebook, and this will die | off | yarg wrote: | It's still a problem if it impacts the development model - | and if I remember rightly from last time Lemmy came up, it | does. | Markoff wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-15 23:00 UTC)