Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You can. Beehaw did. Perhaps that is the future of Lemmy. I don't know.
Beehaw did. I think you're still looking for a solution that allows the full Fediverse-wide system of communication with control of bad actors. I'll agree that doesn't exist and likely won't. I'm arguing that it doesn't need to for certain use cases of Lemmy to operate.
You're still thinking about it as an asymmetrical problem. Taking one portion that has a problem and isolating that from the rest. I'm saying if every part has the same problem that doesn't solve it AND it means the entire network is no longer interoperable, which was the entire point from the start.
What you're ultimately saying is that you can have a small interoperable network or a large centralized network, but not both. Which, if you're right, begs the question of why try to decentralize and federate in the first place if you don't have a solution to secure that arrangement.
And, to be clear, even in that scenario now you have an isolated, self-run social network that has exactly the same moderation issues and running costs as Reddit or any other alternative.
I am. I don't believe there is one version of success nor one version of failure. That's one of the beauties of the Fediverse. While there can be fully integrated interaction between instances, there doesn't have to be.
Bolding is mine. That is an opinion, but not a fact. I'll agree it was one of the biggest features, but it is by no means the only reason for Lemmy or the Fediverse's existence.
I'm citing those as the two extremes but I'm not saying those are the only two options.
I reject that premise. If decentralization and federation were inexorably linked to Lemmy (and the Fediverse as a whole), the authors of Lemmy would not have built in the functionality to defederate, nor to block other instances. They did though. This tells us that while they envisioned the benefits of sharing, they also recognized those that wouldn't want to and endorsed it with methods to cut out the sharing.
Not quite. From an operators point of view, sure. However from a consumer's point of view, a social media application stack is a massive undertaking to write as whole cloth. Lemmy software simply existing means that anyone can stand up their own social media network with their own rules (and yes, costs). This, in itself, is a better evolution over Reddit as a private platform. If you don't like that "reddit" you can stand up your own "reddit".
If you're looking for me to say Lemmy is the perfect platform without any flaws, you won't find me saying that. I will say however that it is better than the alternatives we have today. We'll see if it has enough autonomy and control to its operators to stand the test of time. Irrespective of where we each stand on this discussion, I think we'll both be hoping it does.
I just don't think that's a reasonable view, and it's certainly a marginal one in the community. Nobody is out there claiming that the core feature of Fedi apps is self-hosting a tiny social network for your friends, disconnected from every other piece. The selling point is supposed to be that your tiny, self-hosted instance is still connected to this distributed, crowdsourced larger network.
Building a social network sure is hard and requires a building a lot of software, but unlike other pieces of software, social networks carry a LOT of additional costs to run at scale and make no sense to run without the scale. You can host Jellyfin for your small group of friends. Maybe a chat server or a list service, not a forum or a link aggregator.
In any case, even if you are an outlier and see that as a valid use case, that's definitely not a majority view, and the Fedi community has both ambitions to get larger and an expectation that this will be done with effective moderation baked into the service. You and I agree on the existence of that problem, we just disagree on the resulting state after it surface.
You're welcome to hold that opinion.
I agree.
I'm not making any strong claims to the resulting state afterward. I can't predict the future with any level of confidence. However, I'm saying there are future scenarios where my position can exist at an extreme. This itself is a benefit over the competition.
I appreciate the time you've taken to discuss this. I think we can leave the conversation here and part on good terms. I see your position as a valid possible future too.