you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

He's at -5 at the moment. Depending on what instances you have blocked, you're going to see different amounts. It doesn't mean those people aren't there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Even if the post is true, it was the worst way to present it. It reads like trolling:

    Call out people's politics with grandiose rhetoric, not backing up any claims with links to evidence.

    Declare the other side is unbiased.

    I mean, Internet 101 would dictate you downvote and disengage. It's not going to generate a discussion that would change minds or be constructive. Even now we're not talking about small website discoverability, but instead downvotes.

    EDIT: I'm going to put my money where my mouth is. I'll try the same post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If you'd like evidence of the toxic or extreme side of Lemmy, it's not hard to find. Are we really disagreeing that this is a problem with Lemmy? Regardless, you're misrepresenting OP with the "declare the other side is unbiased".

    This conversation started started with pushing back on the idea of using Lemmy as a solution to small site discoverability. The toxicity and social aspects are perfectly relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    right right. Totally agree. The community here hurts it's discoverability. My criticism is only in the way to the post was worded.

    I had this big explanation, but I realized it's not worth it. I already covered what I wanted to say.

  • source
  • parent