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
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances… so don’t paint with a broad brush.

    I never said Lemmy lacked diversity. I explicitly wrote that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. My point was about specific servers that embrace that culture. Those are the ones I will de-federate from. That’s not a broad brush—it’s a filter.

    Demanding that we adopt and police some universal ‘politeness’ code… is a bizarre notion.

    I didn’t demand anything universal. That’s a strawman. I’m not lobbying for every instance to adopt my preferences. I said my server will have standards, and I will apply them consistently. That’s the very opposite of imposing uniformity—it’s me choosing how I run my space.

    It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates.

    On the contrary, it shows I understand it perfectly. Federation is built on choice. The right to set boundaries for my server—including who I federate with—is not a misunderstanding, it’s the entire point of federation.

    So no, it doesn’t need to be fixed. It is working as intended.

    You misread my statement. I didn’t say Lemmy needs fixing outright. I said: if Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed. That’s a conditional. It only applies in the hypothetical scenario where bro culture is inseparable from Lemmy.

    We actively don’t want such things in place, because that’s what happened at Reddit…

    Again, this ignores what I wrote. I’m not calling for top-down enforcement or advertiser-friendly sanitization. I’m calling for exercising my own discretion on my own server. That’s literally the opposite of Reddit’s centralized approach.

    If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you.”

    Exactly. That’s what I said I would do. I’m glad you recognize that, but your comment tries to paint that decision as unreasonable when it’s actually how the Fediverse is designed to function.

    All this judgmental language against whole communities…

    That’s projection. I didn’t condemn all communities, just those that embrace a style I don’t want to interact with. There’s nothing “judgmental” about drawing lines for the environment I’m responsible for maintaining. Every server admin does this, even if they call it by softer names.

    You’ve made yourself seem unreasonable… no trace of self-reflection.

    That’s an unfair characterization. Self-reflection is exactly why I framed my statement with an if. I left room for nuance, acknowledged diversity, and clarified my standards. You ignored those elements and replaced them with a caricature.

    If you adopt the position that you are always right… you should do some self-crit.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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

    Pointing out where I draw boundaries isn’t disdain—it’s clarity. I’ve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I won’t do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (“cool story bro”) is just harmless slang. That’s not disdain, that’s naming behaviour for what it is.

    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?”*

    That’s not accurate. I didn’t call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. That’s different from disagreement. You’re collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and they’re not.

    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.’

    This isn’t hyperbole. “Bro” is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:

    • Fake familiarity (“cool story bro” from strangers isn’t friendship).
    • Diminishment and mockery (it often carries sarcasm).
    • Gender exclusion (assumes a male default in-group).
    • Gender assumption (applies a label regardless of identity).

    That’s not me inventing baggage out of thin air—it’s how the word is used in real contexts.

    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.

    No. I’m not vilifying people for disagreement. I’m drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. That’s the job of an admin: curating the space they’re responsible for. The word “bro” as commonly used isn’t just “a commonplace word.” It’s a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. That’s why I’m flagging it.

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    You’re describing elections, not the absence of hierarchy. That may make your server representative, but it doesn’t make it non-hierarchical. Someone still fits the role of admin, someone still has the keys to the machine, and someone can still pull the plug on the entire server at any moment.

    That’s not egalitarianism—that’s hierarchy with window dressing. Elections don’t erase the structure. They just decide who occupies it. And the structure itself carries the same asymmetries: technical control, federation policies, enforcement of rules, the ability to de-federate or delete outright.

    Which is fine—server administration is hierarchical by design. But it undercuts your attempt to paint my stance as authoritarian. I’m upfront about what the role entails: curating and enforcing standards in the space I’m responsible for. You’re doing the same thing, just phrased differently.

    And that flourish about “pointless debating points” is cowardice. You’ve been caught in your own contradiction—preaching anarchism while holding the keys to a server—and rather than face it, you try to wave it away. That’s not an argument. That’s an admission you’ve got nothing left.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    So if you ever abuse your power, you’ll be held accountable… by the other admin.

    The other guy sitting at the top of the hierarchy.

    The same guy who named the whole server after himself.

    Yeah, no hierarchies or egos here. Just pure, uncut anarchism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It really doesn’t matter how many admins you’ve got or how you divvy up the titles. Lemmy, by design, requires an admin for it to even function. That alone makes it hierarchical.

    Any community can only be what the software allows it to be. And Lemmy hardcodes a structure: admin → mods → lowly “users.” (Isn’t it funny how both the software industry and drug dealers refer to people as “users”?) Your ideals can’t undo the fact that this is a hierarchy baked into the system.

    If you truly believed in the purity of your anarchism, no one would “own” the server. Hell, there wouldn’t even be a server. It would all be peer-to-peer nodes, something closer to Secure Scuttlebutt.

    But instead you’re here, running software built from the ground up for hierarchy. And you’re an admin of it. How very anarchist of you.

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

    Lmao you are the very worst example of a reddit-style debate bro I've ever seen on Lemmy. No wonder everything is going so well for you.

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

    Thanks, though—our back-and-forth did get me thinking about the feasibility of true peer-to-peer software that offers Reddit-like topical functions.

    Something where there aren’t admins, mods, or “users.” Something anarchist by design, not just by branding.

    Appreciate the inspiration.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    The thing is, all communities on the Internet can only ever be what the system is designed to allow.

    If a platform is built for hierarchy, then it is a hierarchy—regardless of the ideals people bring into it. No amount of goodwill or re-labelling (“provider,” “protector,” “facilitator”) changes the fact that the software has hard-coded roles with asymmetric power.

    And this isn’t some quirky personal view of mine. People far more intelligent than me have been pointing this out for decades. Lawrence Lessig, in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999), put it bluntly:

    “Code is law. What people can and cannot do in cyberspace is regulated by the software and hardware that make cyberspace what it is.”

    Geert Lovink, in Networks Without a Cause (2011), made the same point about platforms and power:

    ”Design decisions are power decisions. Interfaces, defaults, permissions—they do not merely ‘enable’ interaction, they structure it, and in doing so they impose hierarchies.”

    Helen Nissenbaum, in Values in Design (2005), sharpened it further:

    ”The architectures of systems—their technical frameworks—inevitably embed social and political values. Claims to neutrality obscure the ways in which they establish constraints and privileges.”

    History is full of examples where egalitarian ideals ran headlong into the hard wall of software architecture.

    Wikipedia was envisioned as a flat, peer-produced project—yet its reliance on admin powers and arbitration committees quickly created an entrenched hierarchy of “super-editors.” Reddit’s early culture thrived on openness, but its karma system and centralized admins ultimately entrenched a ranking-and-punishment order that couldn’t be wished away. Even early Usenet communities, which imagined themselves as free-flowing conversations, were shaped by killfiles, moderators, and backbone hierarchies dictated by the protocol itself.

    So when I point out that Lemmy is hierarchical, it’s not some rhetorical trick. It’s simply recognizing that hierarchy is baked into the software.

    You can call admins “facilitators,” you can hold elections, you can promise benevolence—but the structure is still a pyramid, and it will always tilt power toward whoever holds the keys.

    That’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a matter of design.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •