145
[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social </c/movies@piefed.social> being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post (lazysoci.al)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AyVP1erbZe8tUJAPNg

Edit: previous post: https://lemmy.world/post/36281965

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (54 children)

    I am starting to feel sincerely like it would be a good idea for YPTB to adopt a new rule: If you come in with the point of view "THE MODS ARE GODS THEIR DECISIONS MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED", they get banned instantly, with a short reply from the moderator saying "Can do! My decisions may not be questioned."

    (Temp banned obviously. I'm not a monster.)

    Obviously the admins can do what they want with their server, and mods likewise within their communities. What we're set up to discuss in this community is whether or not they've used that control -- which they're obviously able to wield -- in a manner that makes them a twatrocket.

    There's a whole philosophy of cooperative endeavor involved here. I just recently got a temp ban that was 100% justified, I'm fine with that. Lots of mods use their mod powers in a way that's perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and part of a healthy society is that people in whom is vested some level of control over the surroundings, we can talk about whether they're being reasonable with it. Almost everyone is, and sometimes there are reasonable discussions to be had about if they unintentionally stepped over a line or offended someone or something. This whole model where it's little warring fiefdoms, and I'm going to be a screaming unrestrained dickhead if I want to when you're in my fiefdom and if you don't like it, go somewhere else, is one that people are able to adopt. I don't think it is a good one. I feel like ignoring the feedback you get, if you do decide that's your MO, is going to lead to a bad engagement with the rest of the community and a lack of success for your new instance. It's a give and take, people can talk, sometimes when people are telling you you're out of line, they're just kind of looking out for you and letting you know they take offense and probably others do too, you know?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    Yeah, I get that. And you're right, you can do whatever you want including deciding "this community is all just wrong and I'm going to make something right," and that's the nice thing about user-hosted networks like this. And I've certainly come down on the side of "the Lemmy community can get lost because the majority is wrong on whatever issue we're talking about" in the past.

    Personally in my judgement I don't really see it as harassment in this case, I just see people disagreeing strongly with your actions and then getting snarky or insulting about it as people are wont to do -- like I said, the only thing I really know about you is that you started banning people for downvotes and "bro" both of which seem ridiculous to me. (And also a tactical error, since rightly or wrongly it'll invite a kind of dogpiling publicity which I don't think you want.) But yeah, everyone has the ability to draw their own distinction and follow through on their own server / own community based on you being right and everyone else being wrong versus the other way around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    Well but like I say, I think you made kind of a tactical error if you don't want stuff like that to happen. I have plenty of times seen a mod ban for some reason that almost everyone disagrees with. I have never seen a mod snoop on the upvotes for the banned comment and also attempt to ban people from expressing their approval for the banned content, and then send every one of them a snotty DM about it. I think that's very obviously an overreach, and there is sort of a societal immune system that automatically wants to backlash against that kind of thing by marking the person who did it as "enemy" and making sure they hear about it that that behavior is unwanted. And of course the internet being what it is, sometimes that backlash takes on a life of its own and turns into something incredibly toxic and unwarranted. I think though that this idea that you'll set yourself apart from that kind of thing ever happening to you, because you can just run your own server and control everything about how people interact with you, is just a non starter. I think reexamining your own behavior is a lot more positive way to approach making sure you won't get harassed as much in the future.

    IDK man, maybe I'm wrong or I missed finding out about some important details of how it happened. And for all I know some people did harass you in some out-of-pocket way. I'm just saying how I see it, that's all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    You know, I only tried the private message approach because someone suggested it was the best way to de-escalate. Before that, I would simply ban—no conversation, no debate.

    On the servers I run myself, I go even further: I de-federate. No warnings. It’s clean, simple, and fast.

    Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.

    So yes, messaging turned out to be a big waste of time. The real takeaway for me is simple: own the space, set clear expectations, and act quickly when problems arise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    I think the issue was banning for giving votes you didn't agree with, not with sending the DMs. I've sent DMs instead of doing admin actions before, just to open a dialogue, or to give people a chance to push back or explain before I take some kind of action, and that part seems fine. I can't even really articulate why it was that this rubbed people so badly the wrong way, but I think sending the DMs and getting in an extended back and forth did somehow make it worse. Definitely doubling down and banning people (and also DMing them) because their reaction and vote on it wasn't the "correct" and permitted one according to you made it worse.

    People can vote. People can react. Setting yourself up as this lord and arbiter of what's right and wrong is always going to make a backlash. If it was me, I would have made a public reply instead of a DM so that other people can weigh in, I would have framed it in terms of "what I allow here" and made sure to clarify the rules on the sidebar instead of framing your point of view as the one that's objectively the right one (which you're still doing here, when you describe calling someone "bro" as "toxic" instead of saying that you personally think it's rude and don't allow it). And then if they still don't agree, you're still within your rights to just say yes okay fine but that's the rules, sorry, and ban them (and then move on yes).

    I still think you would have gotten backlash, but framing it in that way would have at least shown you have some awareness that these categories and judgements are just your categories and judgements, and regardless of what the Lemmy software's mod controls have led you to believe, other people are allowed to have their own that are different from yours. If you'd done that I don't think it would have really developed to anything, there might have been one YPTB post about it at worst and then people would have shrugged and moved on with their day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Sure. That's all your opinion. And the rest of Lemmy is letting you know how they plan to react, when instead of trying to convince them of that while respecting their ability to make up their own mind at the end of the day, you ban them for expressing even a hint of any other viewpoint, and insist that they're being bad.

    I don't even think your viewpoint is crazy or wrong or anything, but bouncing on mod controls and insisting to people implicitly that they're being "toxic" if they think anything different even if they literally didn't mean anything wrong or offensive, and there's a 0% chance that their viewpoint has any validity and 100% that yours is the objectively right viewpoint, isn't going to make progress on turning people around to it.

    Good luck with your instance I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    This is a super weird take. Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances. Our instance, for example, has a really high percentage of users with ADHD, ASD and other neurodivergences. We also have a ton of LGBTQI+ folks. So all I'm saying is don't be too quick to paint Lemmy users with a broad brush.

    If Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed.

    Lemmy isn't about creating a monoculture with a fixed set of values. It's about having diverse communities and instances with their own sets of values and rules. That's the beauty of Lemmy and the fediverse. Demanding that we adopt and police some universal "politeness" code across every instance that prohibits the use of the word "bro" simply because that's what you want is really quite a bizarre notion. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates. So no, it doesn't need to be fixed. It is working as intended. Diversity is a big strength of the fediverse. We actively don't want such things in place, because that's what happened at places like Reddit, owned by big corpos who suddenly decided they wanted everything advertiser friendly for their IPO.

    If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you. But c'mon... all this judgmental language against whole communities of people simply because some folks dared to disagree with your opinion on this topic? It seems like the only thing you have done in this post is make yourself seem even more unreasonable about the topic. None of your responses show a trace of self-reflection, or acceptance of the different perspectives that were shared with you, which is kinda disappointing. If you adopt the position that you are always right and everyone who criticizes you is wrong, then what does that make you? You should do some self crit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    Nobody said I’m always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. That’s not about being universally “right.” It’s about being consistent with the principles I believe in.

    While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards [those who] disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.

    For example, in regard to people who (perfectly reasonably) responded negatively towards your private messages, you said:

    Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.

    And the only reason you had for calling those users "toxic" is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy? They are not the toxic ones in this scenario.

    A “bro” is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining. [...]

    I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word "bro", or "sis" or basically anything else. All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.

    If that’s not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you don’t have to engage with me at all.

    As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them aren't to my taste.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.

    Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. That's how a community should function. That's how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. I'd last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so I'll leave it at that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    If I abused my position I would fully expect to be held accountable by one of our other admins. And I've also reversed mod decisions due to user feedback. But in order to do that you've got to be open and responsive to feedback in the first place. But when you are the sole admin there is nobody to keep your ego in check. I still had that [left], I guess.

    Thank you for describing it as a flourish, I liked that part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You are making a ton of assumptions based total ignorance of how dbzer0 is operated and governed, even how many admins we have, or of the history of how it ended up under db0's project domain. And it's not my job to educate you, especially because I can tell already that nothing I can say will disabuse you of your self-serving preconceptions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You seem to hold a fundamentally different view of what an admin can/should be. Idk if that's just a consequence of a turbolib brain or what, but it sounds incredibly foreign to me. In my experience on Blahaj and here on DB0, the understanding is that the admins are providing a service for us. Provider, protector, facilitator- these titles don't represent an inherent hierarchy, and neither does administrator

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I mean definitely get mine first if this glass palace stuff is what yours is all about, this seems to be a hill you want to die on. Problem is it also seems to have been both painstakingly built and maintained by yourself and no one else.

    Its getting weird dude, let it go (and yes dude is gender neutral)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You don't like "Bro-culture". That's a description of a specific sort of gross social movement. You are extending that dislike to a ubiquitous word that only has that connotation when used as a descriptor of "Bro-culture-Bros".

    The word itself and it's common usage have nothing to do with that, it's one of the most commonly used, informal, globally-colloquial expressions in our current era.

    It's like getting mad at the word right cause it's part of right-wing, and people use it all the time to indicate direction which is causing a rise of global fascism. It's not just silly, it's a common reason for you to have an argument with a person.

    It's not an opinion, it's a little loaded argument gun you always have cocked, it's really silly and obvious you just like to argue and this is a pit trap full of sharpened spikes. Grow up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    That's just one reason. Another reason I don't like "bro" is because it's often used as a diminisher. Chill out, bro. Don’t take it so seriously, bro. It’s shorthand for brushing someone off, trivializing their feelings, or cutting them down while pretending it’s casual. That dynamic doesn’t build respect—it erodes it.

    Also, “bro” creates a sense of fake familiarity. It gets used to imply closeness that isn’t there, as if a single word can override the need for trust or mutual understanding. That kind of assumed intimacy often feels presumptive and even manipulative, especially in spaces where people don’t know each other well.

    So basically there's three solid reasons to not allow bro-talk.

    There's one reason to use the word "bro", which I find perfectly acceptable: if someone is a literal sibling. Otherwise, you don't need it. It shouldn't be in your vocabulary.

    Be that as it may, you may disagree. In which case there's several Lemmy servers in which it's perfectly allowable—but not mine.

    EDIT: And while we're at it, there's two more reasons to avoid bro-talk:

    1. Even if meant positively, it's exclusionary
    2. Assumes gender, magnifying the risk of misgendering
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I empathize and agree with a lot of your points. I see where your coming from. I do find a lot of "bro" talk to come across really cringe.

    However, I think you are making an error by banning people for it. If ultimately you're goal is to build communities and have interesting conversations, then banning people for what is socially widely accepted removes the ability to build connections and learn from others from a wide swath of people. You are essentially quarantining yourself and closing yourself off from others by drawing very innocuous lines in the sand. You're limiting your community to only people that are okay with incredibly controlled language and incredibly controlled communities. This diminishes your ability to learn from others, have interesting conversations, and be challenged by new information. A lot of people that might otherwise want to make a connection with you, will find such a strict line so ridiculous they will discount everything else you say because they find you to be so unreasonable.

    Also, not everyone uses bro as a deminisher or even gendered, many people do see themselves as being siblings to everyone, all humans are family and saying "bro" is a way of reminding others that we are all connected. You are ultimately harming yourself more than anyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    And just because someone doesn’t get along with another person

    TIL using a colloquialism is the same thing as not getting along.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    And according to you that disagreement also means we don't get along. Because otherwise you wouldn't be banning people for saying bro, bro.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    So, in absence of disagreements & conflicts (bcs insta ban/defederation), and building your own community, isn't that a bit like that the lines of Trump (well, generally politicians to various degrees) or CEOs do?
    Bcs with that (in those cases being surrounded by "yes-men") reaching other specific goals is easier/faster.

    I think I'm starting to understand where & how you are going with this, but perhaps not why. CEOs don't have 'a nice community' as a goal, they have their agenda and timelines/mandates. Their 'communities' are purpose-built ("moderated").

    What "use" (~overall benefit?) is a highly selected federated community?

    It's a genuine question about endgame, how it would look like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    It's not software that represents the people, it's the people using the software that represent the people.

    If you handpick people vs if you run a defederated instance seems about the same approach, just at a different level.

    If the granularity of like-mindedness standard gets too narrow you do just end up an increasingly homogenous group.
    That's why I mentioned Trump & you provided the Truth Social mention (it's def not a personal level comparison) and how homogeneous it looks to the average outsider. But that does fit the description, only for such a community 'one can take responsibility', bcs it's 'his', not just the sever, but in a sense what the community is/the people are & what they do (same with CEOs in a company).
    To very much exaggerate: like a cult agreeing on everything except the small things like what to have for dinner.

    All the issues you repeated here seem like they are normal for a group of more than one person.
    It's just how humans are built. And how communities naturally evolve, live & change.

    You mentioned the 'freedom of association' - do you kinda equate that (association) with allegiance? Like a selected badge one wears?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The problem with your framing is that it treats software as neutral when it isn’t.

    Social media software encodes structure into how communities are organized. If the software is hierarchical, the community will be hierarchical. There’s no way around that unless everyone literally operates their own nodes.

    And that’s where the real vulnerability lies. If you don’t run your own server, you’re not sovereign. You’re donating your content to someone else’s machine and trusting that their standards, moderation, and moods won’t turn against you. Ideals won’t protect you if the design itself makes you dependent.

    If you really care about a sense of ownership, then you should be running your own server. That’s what freedom of association actually means. It isn’t allegiance. Allegiance locks you in. Association multiplies your choices—pick a server that matches your values, or start your own. That’s the entire point of federation.

    So let’s not pretend mass platforms or wide-open instances are some higher form of democracy. They aren’t. They’re just populism sitting on top of hierarchy. The lowest common denominator gets to shout “this is the people,” while the actual levers of control stay exactly where they’ve always been—with whoever holds the keys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    On your instance too others are contributing the content, not you as a mod. Humans regardless of hierarchical or anarchical systems are the community. It's the gathering & exchanging. It's not the king paying for a feast that makes the guests mingle & communicate with each other. That's just infrastructure. If they go away to anther party there is no content there, unless the kind posts for themselves.

    But are you saying that owning the server makes you own whoever donates their content in a discussion just bcs they have a systemic power?

    I don't think people are generally confused at all how hierarchical online platforms are. Why would they be?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The feast metaphor doesn’t hold. If I pay for a banquet hall, the guests can mingle—but they don’t control the locks on the doors, the electricity, or whether the venue even stays open tomorrow. If I decide to shut the place down, the party ends whether they like it or not. That’s not neutral infrastructure. That’s systemic power.

    I’m not saying the admin “owns” people’s words. Users own what they write. But whether that writing continues to exist, whether it stays visible, whether it can even be reached—those are all contingent on the admin. Content lives inside infrastructure, and whoever holds the keys controls the environment where it persists.

    And people absolutely are confused about this. Look at lemm.ee: did the community want to vanish overnight? No—but the admin pulled the plug, and everything disappeared. The same happens on Reddit when admins close subreddits, or on Discord when a server gets nuked. People routinely find themselves blindsided because they mistake participation for ownership.

    That’s the point I’m pressing: software that demands admins and mods creates hierarchy, no matter what ideals we wrap around it. If we want a true commons, the architecture has to change—there can’t be “users,” only peers, each running their own node. Until then, pretending otherwise is just comforting metaphor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    That is systemic power to end it, not to have content created. For that is just a space.

    I'm not sure who was arguing against there being a hierarchy to online or most offline social communities.
    You don't have a town square if nobody builds it, you have the woods.

    Also what is the big deal if a community gets obliterated from time to time? It's not a family.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Space isn’t “just a space.” Space is what makes words accessible. A post that nobody can reach might as well not exist. Infrastructure isn’t neutral—it’s the condition that makes communication possible in the first place.

    And admins don’t just have the power to end a space. They have the power to prevent speech from ever happening. They can de-platform, silence, or exclude before words are written. That’s not trivial. That’s systemic control over what gets created, not just what gets erased.

    And sometimes communities really are families—both literal and ad hoc. People pour years of energy, conversation, and memory into them. When they get obliterated, it’s not “just a space” disappearing—it’s a shared history wiped out because one person with keys decided it was over.

    What makes your comment even more striking is that it contradicts your earlier points. First you downplayed hierarchy by saying admins are just neutral facilitators, now you admit they hold systemic power but dismiss it as “no big deal.” Which one is it?

    That’s the imbalance I’m pointing at. If we want real commons, that has to change. Otherwise we’re all just tenants, and the landlord can decide at any moment to bulldoze the building. Dismissing that as unimportant is exactly how these power structures stay invisible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm saying the same thing all a long.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Fair enough—I probably came in sharper than I needed to. I get that you’re not denying the power imbalance, just framing it differently.

    We’re closer in view than it might have sounded. My aim wasn’t to dunk on you, just to stress that these structures aren’t neutral. If we’re both pointing in the same direction, then good—that’s where the real work begins.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, kinda.
    But as authoritarian as mods are, that also means their behaviour is more on display (I mean that regardless of rule choices, just as basically branding, which I frame under infrastructure too - tho some mods post a lot).
    Much like (in normal countries) judges can lose their jobs due to private life & examples they set (it's a full-time representation, not just the hours in a robe).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    to that person's spaces

    Ah, so...

    It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. You're big on concept that things are owned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. They're not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I'm not entitled to or interested in a community you run, but this is really cringe and implies a lot of really awful shit about you.

    You get how that looks, right? Wanting 'total control' of a community?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don’t agree with the idea that everyone is automatically entitled to my server. For me, running a server is about configuring and curating a space I’m prepared to take responsibility for.

    The Fediverse gives that same freedom to everyone. If someone doesn’t like how a server is managed, they can join another or create their own. That’s the strength of the model—real choice.

    So when I talk about “control,” I’m talking about shaping my own space, not laying claim to anyone else’s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How's that different from having your personal site or blog? Because that sounds like what you want, instead of a fediverse instance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Federation is two way, while a blog tends to be one way.

    Mastodon does not segment according to interest other than hashtags. Hashtags are non-moderated and can be abused with spam.

    I have no problem with people commenting or contributing provided they are good people. Hell, I’ll even host them. Provided, of course, they understand the limitations of that hosting.

    If I had my way, everyone would be self-hosting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But if the space includes people, this stops being so simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    That stance becomes problematic when a community really grows & becomes more than the sum is it's parts.
    (I mean at bigger sizes than a few thousand active users.)

    It's a complex issue, but at some point "your" infrastructure becomes a community that itself should* be respected.

    (*should isn't the same as needs to, but I think that morally)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I appreciate that you’re raising this in good faith because it is a complex issue. But I see real problems with the idea that infrastructure becomes morally owned by the community once it gets big enough.

    Unless that community is actually paying the bills, this so-called moral obligation just shifts the burden onto the one footing the costs. That doesn’t strike me as moral at all.

    And online communities are transient by nature. People show up, feel invested for a while, then disappear. To act as if their fleeting sense of ownership creates a lasting obligation on the admin is unrealistic.

    There’s also what Ortega y Gasset warned about in The Revolt of the Masses. When something is said to be “owned by the community,” it rarely means real stewardship. It means the mass asserts itself and the loudest voices dictate terms. That isn’t democracy. It’s populism built on top of a hierarchy.

    Because if the software itself is hierarchical but claims to be “for the masses,” that isn’t democracy either. It’s a pyramid structure dressed up in populist rhetoric. The admin still has the keys. The mods still enforce. The users still depend on both.

    That’s why I insist on my own server. I’d rather be upfront: I curate and maintain a space I’m willing to take responsibility for. That’s not authoritarian and it’s not populist. It’s just owning what I host instead of pretending the power structure doesn’t exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yeah, the bit where the owner of infrastructure 'owns' the community feels super weird (bcs community are the people & what they produce, the space is the infrastructure).
    But I understand what you are saying.

    Thx for the reply.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yeah, I get why the word “own” makes people uneasy. There’s a sincere belief that communities should belong to the commons—that no one should control the space, that it should be shared, stewarded, collective.

    I sympathize with that. I really do.

    But that’s not how the software works.

    Lemmy isn’t structured like a commons. Neither is Mastodon. Neither is most federated software. These platforms still rely on admins, moderators, and users. There are hierarchies, permissions, access levels. Someone has root. Someone pays the bills. Someone can click “ban.”

    If you’re building a community on someone else’s server, you are doing so inside their infrastructure. And under the law, they are the legal operator and data controller. That gives them full authority—technical and legal—over the domain, the storage, the moderation tools, and the continued existence of what you built.

    So yes—everything you post on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter lives behind walls. Even if you retain copyright, you’ve handed over a perpetual license to do whatever they want with it. They own the platform. They control the archive. You’re not publishing. You’re donating.

    The Fediverse is better—but let’s not pretend it’s structurally different. If you build something inside someone else’s instance, they own the keys. If they kick you out, it’s gone. That’s not a glitch. That’s the model.

    If you truly want a commons—a system with no admins, no mods, no hierarchy—you need to build software that works that way. But that’s not Lemmy. Not Mastodon. Not Misskey. Not PeerTube.

    In this system, the only real recourse is to run your own server. That’s where your power begins. That’s where your autonomy lives.

    And that’s why I say: I want to own my community.

    Because if I don’t, someone else will. And I’ve seen what happens when they do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I get where we are, but I think there is a lot of nuance about this - between a policed community and a totally anarchist one (where everyone is the police). The later you prob see as that instantly & whims of the masses guided by populism.

    A bit like irl in a public square. It def depends on the state laws & enforcement (sever & community mods), and the people who frequent the square ("association"?), but most of behaviour is provided by the people. What they talk and agree is theirs.

    I get that server owners "are paying" (that's why I believe such communities/instances should be powered by donations, I think my previous home lemm.ee was), but they don't create content. And curating content (beyond a fixed set of rules everyone has access to upfront) by curating users is a bit like playing with AI (add a bit of this, ups a bit too much of that, etc).

    That's why folk believe (I think rightfully) even a community on Reddit or Twatter is the users, not the mods. Like, you can adopt someone, house then, even ban disown, yet you don't own them & their work isn't yours. You do it bcs you want that in your life or want that for others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I get what you’re saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commons—something where people’s conversations aren’t at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.

    But that’s not how Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, or any of the current platforms work. These systems are hierarchical by design. They require admins, they require mods, and everyone else becomes “users.” That’s not a public square, that’s tenancy.

    Even donations don’t change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.ee—did the community there want to be wiped out overnight? Of course not. But the admin pulled the plug, and that was the end of it. That’s the architecture working as designed.

    If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about “users.” There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone else’s server and hoping they’ll be benevolent forever.

    That’s the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we don’t have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one admin’s decision away from disappearing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.

    I'm arguing a community is possible within a prison population. And these communities are moderated yet still not owned by the prison (even if the prisoners might be, or even get executed, or punished, isolated, removed, etc).

    I don't know who is saying social networks aren't hieratical in nature or where that idea would come from.

    Or what is wrong with that. Only in a perfect anarchy would peers moderate themselves. And most folk aren't anarchists (in the sense they don't want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Being upfront & clear is a big part of it.

    I think everybody thinks every social platform is very hierarchical and fairly authoritarian - simply bcs there isn't enough "mods" to form services (like lawyers, law/rule writers and interpreters, etc).

    If there is one mod that bans me for an unwritten rule I don't go to the equivalent of a supreme court & get them to acknowledge that the rule at the time wasn't written, that it has to be written now (if approved by the state/owner).
    If that is all one person it's just fully autocratic.
    And even if that is 10 people it's still very much the same (best case they can review/talk about my case between themselves). You can't have a normal community at scales that would even allow for more than this.

    Also, afaik there are no tendencies to move such systems to more democratic (eg mass voting on rules that is triggered if the petition collects 1000 signatures) or more anarchic (calling for peers instead of mods when "a rule" is being broken) ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)