I don’t think it’s a good instance. I certainly don’t think it’s a good community, and I see that as an inevitable result of its existence (“left-wing” people looking to avoid reddit’s censorship have two large lemmy instances for their interests, so almost none will have a want or need to go to wolfballs to counter out the “right-wing” people who are looking to avoid reddit’s other censorship and don’t have a designated instance). Theoretically it could be neutral, but it’s userbase simply won’t be. That’s how ‘free-speech extremism’ works online; only a few idealists and a heap of people no-one cares to hear need those places, so they become its target audience.
I do think the instance is fine to have on that site.
The Lemmy software isn’t created as an exclusive space for Marxist-Leninism, or leftism (unlike the two largest instances). It’s a self-hostable solution. And I’d personally rather the kind of people who would choose to post there see that there’s a place that caters to their views over there rather than mistakenly think they need to create a place for themselves on the other instances, especially smaller ones more vulnerable to flooding.
Furthermore, the more developers (such as their admin) who feel welcome in the project and can act in a constructive way, the better the code gets. Their admin made a post saying they would upstream any useful features they develop (although I haven’t checked to see if they did) they have, see replies.
So what if it’s there? What’s the actual problem with it being listed there?
So what if it’s there? What’s the actual problem with it being listed there?
Furthermore, the more developers (such as their admin) who feel welcome in the project and can act in a constructive way, the better the code gets. Their admin made a post saying they would upstream any useful features they develop (although I haven’t checked to see if they did).
You make arguments for collaborating with Nazis here. I don’t feel comfortable with that. Would you argue the same positions if it was a “pedophile-friendly” or outright pro-pedophile instance? I really ask you to question your beliefs here.
I think there is a distinction. It’s not a ‘nazi instance’, it’s an instance with a couple of nazis using it and tolerated by it. The site ideology is best characterized as “US Libertarian”, the point being that the admin isn’t a Nazi, and their “pro-[personal] freedom” beliefs don’t conflict with the software project and its goal, even if they conflict with me. They can constructively collaborate for mutual benefit. We both hate “big tech” and want an alternative.
A ‘Nazi instance’ and/or a ‘pedophile instance’ is a grayer area cut off, as their goals are more antagonistic and promoting harm by nature rather than incidentally. That’s where I see the benefits of collaboration less worth it and would have no issue rejecting them. And I recall the admins here saying something a little similar, that fascist instances wouldn’t be advertized there.
It isn’t a comfortable decision, but I am able to put aside ideals to work against a massive common enemy. When I read “workers of the world, unite”, I realize it didn’t say “workers who I like, unite”. If a liberal or a US libertarian wants to join an environmental protest or action, good. If collaboration is a pragmatically effective way towards improving conditions and reaching goals, my idealism of purity isn’t helpful. Small FOSS projects need all the help they can get against a multi-national capitalist-funded website worth multiple billion dollars.
I’m not saying they aren’t revolting or abhorrent or wrong. Of course they are. What I meant (and admittedly poorly worded) was that’s where I draw the boundary of where their beliefs will make me refuse to cooperate for mutual benefit.
Damn, that new post is a brave move. I’m not surprised by the mini-essays you’re receiving from a few people.
It’s an interesting dilemma that I think explains a major difference in libertarian socialism and US libertarianism (‘right libertarians’) behaviors (warning: over-simplification!): extreme personal freedom can come at a cost to everyone’s collective freedom if the person/people want to oppress others. It’s hard to resolve that without compromising liberty, especially with more abstract things like speech which obviously have power but aren’t really comparable with physical violence, and especially in a culture like USA’s that ostensibly values individualism and freedom as core virtues. That’s the reason I’m surprised that post has a positive vote count.
Like I said in the post before, we’re in an unfortunate situation where most of the people who seek free speech are seeking it because they’re banned from other places, rather than by virtue of valuing freedom for all. Of course I don’t need to explain the massive banning of speech on commercial platforms like Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/YouTube that need to keep a good reputation in order to maximize profit (and are ultimately beholden to US government interests that aren’t really open to change). But then you have alt-platforms, like Gab, Parlor, (most/all of) Mastodon, lemmy.ml and similar who allow some alternative and even radical ideas but are definitely not free speech either, even the ones that use it as a marketing point.
So, unless someone values free speech without a personal stake (such as being constantly banned), they’re going to be the people those places reject, which in my experience on loosely-moderated forums is uncivil nazis, open pedophiles and ‘schizophrenics’ (non-technical term used for any obsessive people who spam forums with their obsession to the point were they disrupt conversation and aren’t welcome, usually with a rambling style seen in the writings of people with schizophrenia). Basically, the people who are anti-social to the point of mass rejection even among radical groups.
Which is unfortunate because by being one of the few places to allow neutral free speech, it’s guaranteed that place will mostly be used by the people who most of society don’t want to hear. It would be pretty nice to have some popular melting pots where everyone can be truly sincere and honest and civilly approach sensitive topics, but it’s pretty hard to get that when most people are comfortable where they are and don’t want to regularly see people arguing views they consider abhorrent and shocking.
And, on a second note, thank you for upstreaming code improvement! Having done that in other projects, I realize it’s an extra effort that often seems thankless, but it does feel good to see those changes improving more than just one site.
I don’t think it’s a good instance. I certainly don’t think it’s a good community, and I see that as an inevitable result of its existence (“left-wing” people looking to avoid reddit’s censorship have two large lemmy instances for their interests, so almost none will have a want or need to go to wolfballs to counter out the “right-wing” people who are looking to avoid reddit’s other censorship and don’t have a designated instance). Theoretically it could be neutral, but it’s userbase simply won’t be. That’s how ‘free-speech extremism’ works online; only a few idealists and a heap of people no-one cares to hear need those places, so they become its target audience.
I do think the instance is fine to have on that site.
The Lemmy software isn’t created as an exclusive space for Marxist-Leninism, or leftism (unlike the two largest instances). It’s a self-hostable solution. And I’d personally rather the kind of people who would choose to post there see that there’s a place that caters to their views over there rather than mistakenly think they need to create a place for themselves on the other instances, especially smaller ones more vulnerable to flooding.
Furthermore, the more developers (such as their admin) who feel welcome in the project and can act in a constructive way, the better the code gets. Their admin made a post saying they would upstream any useful features they develop
(although I haven’t checked to see if they did)they have, see replies.So what if it’s there? What’s the actual problem with it being listed there?
You make arguments for collaborating with Nazis here. I don’t feel comfortable with that. Would you argue the same positions if it was a “pedophile-friendly” or outright pro-pedophile instance? I really ask you to question your beliefs here.
I think there is a distinction. It’s not a ‘nazi instance’, it’s an instance with a couple of nazis using it and tolerated by it. The site ideology is best characterized as “US Libertarian”, the point being that the admin isn’t a Nazi, and their “pro-[personal] freedom” beliefs don’t conflict with the software project and its goal, even if they conflict with me. They can constructively collaborate for mutual benefit. We both hate “big tech” and want an alternative.
A ‘Nazi instance’ and/or a ‘pedophile instance’ is a
grayer areacut off, as their goals are more antagonistic and promoting harm by nature rather than incidentally. That’s where I see the benefits of collaboration less worth it and would have no issue rejecting them. And I recall the admins here saying something a little similar, that fascist instances wouldn’t be advertized there.It isn’t a comfortable decision, but I am able to put aside ideals to work against a massive common enemy. When I read “workers of the world, unite”, I realize it didn’t say “workers who I like, unite”. If a liberal or a US libertarian wants to join an environmental protest or action, good. If collaboration is a pragmatically effective way towards improving conditions and reaching goals, my idealism of purity isn’t helpful. Small FOSS projects need all the help they can get against a multi-national capitalist-funded website worth multiple billion dollars.
WTF, at some point you have to stand up against shit that is way wrong, and those types of instances are waaaaaay past the gray area.
I’m not saying they aren’t revolting or abhorrent or wrong. Of course they are. What I meant (and admittedly poorly worded) was that’s where I draw the boundary of where their beliefs will make me refuse to cooperate for mutual benefit.
Oh, thanks for clarifying.
if you tolerate nazis, your a nazi supporter in my book
They tolerate communists too, are they a communist supporter in your book?
also take a look at my user, I am very opposed to nazis and you can guess my opinion of communism
I fucking hope they are, but toleration of nazis in any space whatsoever is completely unacceptable.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Damn, that new post is a brave move. I’m not surprised by the mini-essays you’re receiving from a few people.
It’s an interesting dilemma that I think explains a major difference in libertarian socialism and US libertarianism (‘right libertarians’) behaviors (warning: over-simplification!): extreme personal freedom can come at a cost to everyone’s collective freedom if the person/people want to oppress others. It’s hard to resolve that without compromising liberty, especially with more abstract things like speech which obviously have power but aren’t really comparable with physical violence, and especially in a culture like USA’s that ostensibly values individualism and freedom as core virtues. That’s the reason I’m surprised that post has a positive vote count.
Like I said in the post before, we’re in an unfortunate situation where most of the people who seek free speech are seeking it because they’re banned from other places, rather than by virtue of valuing freedom for all. Of course I don’t need to explain the massive banning of speech on commercial platforms like Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/YouTube that need to keep a good reputation in order to maximize profit (and are ultimately beholden to US government interests that aren’t really open to change). But then you have alt-platforms, like Gab, Parlor, (most/all of) Mastodon, lemmy.ml and similar who allow some alternative and even radical ideas but are definitely not free speech either, even the ones that use it as a marketing point.
So, unless someone values free speech without a personal stake (such as being constantly banned), they’re going to be the people those places reject, which in my experience on loosely-moderated forums is uncivil nazis, open pedophiles and ‘schizophrenics’ (non-technical term used for any obsessive people who spam forums with their obsession to the point were they disrupt conversation and aren’t welcome, usually with a rambling style seen in the writings of people with schizophrenia). Basically, the people who are anti-social to the point of mass rejection even among radical groups.
Which is unfortunate because by being one of the few places to allow neutral free speech, it’s guaranteed that place will mostly be used by the people who most of society don’t want to hear. It would be pretty nice to have some popular melting pots where everyone can be truly sincere and honest and civilly approach sensitive topics, but it’s pretty hard to get that when most people are comfortable where they are and don’t want to regularly see people arguing views they consider abhorrent and shocking.
And, on a second note, thank you for upstreaming code improvement! Having done that in other projects, I realize it’s an extra effort that often seems thankless, but it does feel good to see those changes improving more than just one site.