I settled on lemmy.world, but yeah 90% of the lemmy related discussion I see is “Why doesn’t this work like Reddit and when can I expect it to work like Reddit?”

I’ve tried to do my part in explaining this isn’t meant to be Reddit, but I’m already seeing an increase in hostility directed at devs for the lack of central authority (which is the thing they’re fleeing in the first place but fuck me for pointing that out lol.)

I recently moved here and through my minimal interaction so far, I love it. I’m all about positive treatment and inclusion. I have only made two posts (as a somewhat personal experiment to test the waters) which would not have had any attention on Reddit, and people actually talked and congratulated me, which was a very weird but welcome experience.

And I love that the downvote arrow is removed in order to promote discussion rather than just vote and move on.

A service can always improve and get better in some ways, but the stance of beehaw is perfect imo

Like I never even thought about that aspect and honestly I don’t care as long as I’m not funding violence and hatred. And if that were the case I’d leave. It makes no sense to tell someone how to run their instance. It’s theirs.

Yeah lemmygrad will fade in popularity and lemmy.ml has already gotten so big it’s shifted politically. It also seems like the creators are fine with other ideas on their instance too. Maybe it’s just cause they know lemmy wouldnt get adopted otherwise but the only strict moderating against speech I see is against the obvious trolls and alt right fascists so far.

Then you have beehaw and the other instances outright blocking lemmygrad and things seem just peachy

Personally I have a very poor opinion of tankies, but that doesn’t really affect how I use Lemmy…unless all the good instances are taken over by them. I find the obsession with effectively random people who don’t actually have that much influence over individual instance moderation a purity obsession.

I didn’t even know what a tankie was before today.

I follow some people elsewhere who are mostly hyping up kbin because the main developer of Lemmy is a tankie and the main developer of kbin maybe isn’t - but it’s such a weird thing to apply a purity test to. Other comments mentioned it but Lemmy is FOSS

Actually Kbin is FLOSS too: https://github.com/ernestwisniewski/kbin

This is what I have failed to understand about people seemingly worried about this instance wanting to be a safe space. If they do not like it, they can just jump to another instance.

It’s so easy to spot AI generated text (unless it is made to obscure it).

(Not that I oppose its use here. I think tldrs are a suitable use for LLMs.)

If there was a more feature rich fork but the og is still really active, will you be able to communicate across forks?

Hypothetical example: am I allowed to take a socially conservative stance on gender-affirming healthcare or would that be considered ‘hate speech’?

we’re not going to suddenly deviate from doing our One Rule thing and break out a legal contract and definition for what hate speech is and isn’t–and frankly, even asking this is already kind of a self-report.^[1] this reply also heavily implies you don’t really get why we’ve structured things the way they are here. as for the other question: if you think that gender-affirming care is wrong or immoral or whatever or that trans people are freaks (because that is basically always the unstated implication of such a belief) then no, this really isn’t the instance for you.

I think the issue with that is that dog whistles from far right extremists is constantly changing. And to outline an exact rule of what defines hate speech invites people to find loop holes in the rule.

This is just something that you have to trust the community on. And I can understand that sounds way too risky and vague.

I think with things like this, err on the side of caution, be excellent to one another, and keep politics to what you can do rather than what you should do. In my time, the “should do” arguments is where I found most of the division in communities that aught to get along come from. Just my own thoughts though.

Still, if any mods could give their word on the matter, that’d be(e) fantastic.

I want to provide a bit more of a nuanced answer here, because I suspect there are users for which a wee bit more clarity would be helpful. A quick google on hate speech reveals that the UN has a pretty simple page and info-graphic capturing what hate speech entails. As alyaza mentioned, we’re not interested in rules lawyering about this, if enough people are concerned about speech that’s present, we encourage the entire community to step in - this means members can remind you keep it nice, moderators might, or admins. We aren’t looking to ban people permanently over a single comment that isn’t extremely obvious and explicit hate speech such as “we should kill all <insert slur>”. But we also aren’t tolerant to implicit hate speech, and we will step in if you make an argument such as “we should use phrenology”.

As a general rule (again, not interested in rules lawyering here), if you are trying to advocate for a stance and members of the affected community are pushing back strongly against that stance, it’s probably not something we’re going to let you say around here because we are explicitly a safe space. Your stance on gender-affirming healthcare, for example, could make people who pursue this healthcare who exist in our space very upset and is something that you shouldn’t be attempting to proselytize here. We’re asking you to be considerate of the thoughts and feelings and well-being of our members. There’s a lot of other reasons why you should probably change your stance on this, including that even if you disagree this group of individuals has an extremely high suicide rate and thus preventing access to medical care is indirectly arguing for violence, but that’s outside the scope of this comment and not an educational burden I’m particularly interested in giving to a stranger on the internet who’s asking me questions which raise an eyebrow. I’m trying to treat you with good faith, but even I have limits.

One final note, we are explicitly intolerant of intolerance. Thus if someone using hate speech enters in here, we are not moderating people being hateful in response. They brought that on themselves by being hateful.

There needs to be specific standards clarifying what the rule actually is.

Hard disagree. one of the most annoying things about some reddit moderation is that people would play the “hey technically there isnt a specific point by point rule for the thing so you cant ban me!” and reddit culture was such that the jackass could then start subreddit drama over the power hungry mod “that banned me from being a loud obnoxious jerk, but technically the rules specify loud jerk, but not loud AND obnoxious”.

This isnt your living room and I think as long as the mods and admins have a good head on their shoulders they should allowed to have a set of rules along with discretion for when some users need a timeout.

It’s a stance that leads to trans people killing themselves.

Go to the bottom of the page, click on the Instances link and you’ll se 2 lists, all federated instances and all defederated instances.

I definitely agree and feel with the arguments you have here. It’s a challenging issue to resolve. On one hand there’s the practical Rock of “transitioning to another asset and engaging in the practical burden that shifting gears brings,” and in this circumstance, that would come with the extra caveat of trying to commit to that transition during a busy period as is. On the other hand is the moral Hard Place of “you’re working with an asset actively developed by someone or something with known issues—are you willing to accept, and to some degree associate, with that?” I don’t feel like there’s a clear-cut path that’s both morally bright and practically realistic, and it’s not the kind of thing that makes me dance with joy.

If nothing else, it’s good to respect that we have a dilemma in our hands. Whichever way the community decides to collectively stand, both in the short and long term, I’m happy that we’re having this conversation at all. I think it’s important to acknowledge what we have and have a meaningful discussion around it. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending it’s a non-issue at best delays the issue and allows it to fester.

You’ve captured my own confusing and conflicting thoughts as well.

I have so far loved my experience here (just been a few days) beehaw is exactly what is what to see in an online community

But despite the federated nature of lemmy the code ultimately is (so I’m learning in this thread!) currently in the hands of people who are the opposite of beehaw. That’s a difficult pill to swallow.

I don’t really get why the authors ideals and beliefs matter. For for-profit stuff, it does matter because I don’t want to be supporting someone with that lifestyle or someone who actively wants me dead.

But for the open source stuff, he’s not making any money off of me. And it’s pretty safe since other people are vetting the code and they’ll complain if something malicious is happening. In other words, since I am not contributing to the developer, his ideals don’t really matter to me

So as I run out of energy: I think you start thinking about some broad stances, or people here will start thinking of them for you. That “we do not know what the political leanings of most of our users are” may be a dangerous sign that there isn’t really a pulse on the kind of community you’re building, and are accidentally just throwing together a place where people gather.

well, the we don’t know here should mostly be understood as a very literal and very to the point statement of facts. we have 10,000 users when two weeks ago we had 700. we haven’t run a survey and most of the people here are new. we’re working on a survey to kind of get an idea of basic demographics; as far as what kind of community we want from a moderator side of this we already have a bunch of mods on the same page about what we want and how we want to do it. we are very aware of all the headaches that community building involves. this is stuff we’ve spent a year thinking about on here (and probably at least another year before the community was created) and now we get to put what we thought into practice and see how it goes.

Just took a stroll over by hexbear to see what you’re talking about. To be honest, I really don’t see those folks being pro-state communism. They are pretty clearly just anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, and very much see them as being much more anarcho communism aligned than anything.

Is there widespread claims of them talking hate speech other than bitching about liberals? Hexbear seems annoying in the sense that they are extremely sarcastic and bitter. Then again, I’m a syndicalist myself, so I do agree with a lot of their points, but just hate that kind of /r/completanarchy style of board where it’s clear everyone has a mix of major depression, anger, and trust issues, and everyone goes around enabling eachother.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t think a message board needs to have a political ideology per se - in fact, I think it’s better to not have one. The admin team itself should disagree with one another to an extent imo. Specific communities might work with one cohesive set of ideology, but the instance itself should just have general rules imo, especially since a lot of instances seem to focus mainly on general topics. Anti-hatespeech rules in general cover a lot of ground in keeping conversation genuine.

The pulse of communities is not agreement, it’s discussion. It’s not kindness that’s needed, it’s good faith. Telling a TERF or a Nazi to fuck off isn’t kind, but oh well it’s warranted as they don’t post in good faith. I don’t think the admins need to do anything more than that.

And if people start to assume mass political bias, oh well, they can start their own instance

I think you’re right to point out that a community is always the sum of its parts. Voices will surface within the community and voice themselves. Part of managing a community is making sure that none of these voices end up drowning out or censoring the voices of others. We have a very different style of moderating here, and we encourage the community to have lots of discussions with itself as a means of moderation.

The main point of your post seems to be that you’re arguing that we must tackle certain issues because they are so pervasive in our society. I would ask you this… why? There are spaces on the internet which cater to hyperspecific niches. For example, I might create a space where I only allow people to post pictures of their cats. The cat pictures can’t have any edited text on top of them and it’s impossible to leave comments. Is this a political stance? Must this place somehow still become a space to debate politics? I think it’s fairly easy to recognize that no, this is simply just a space for people to share pictures of their cats.

The scope of this website and community is admittedly much larger than this hypothetical cat picture spot, but it doesn’t matter how big the scope is. We can choose what we focus on and what we allow. We could ban all politics, but we didn’t feel that was necessary. Will the sum of all voices in our political spaces be representative of our community? On some level, yes, but if on average orange cats are most posted in the hypothetical cat community does that signal a superiority for orange cats or a leaning towards orange cats? No, some people post black cats too, and that’s representative of the space we’re looking to have here. Yes, you’re right to point out that human speech is more complex than pictures absent text and we need to be wary of political leanings creating an echo chamber or explicitly discouraging other voices but I’ve already addressed this and similar issues a few times in my other philosophy posts (this is a long discussion to have and a worthy one, but this is not the space for that right now).

We aren’t taking a stance on which cat is superior because we are wholly uninterested in doing so. We are interested in having a space absent on hate speech, so that’s what we don’t allow. It just so happens that hate speech overlaps to some degree with nearly all political ideologies and this post was about clarifying that point.

Hot (maybe not?) take that I suspect may be in line with your thinking here: Acknowledging a community’s political trends and Striving to build a community that includes people that may not align with the majority trends do not have to be mutually exclusive.

“Beehaw” as in the institution that maintains the community may not necessarily seek to brand itself as politically affiliated, but “Beehaw” as in the word and spirit of the law of the land will inevitably appeal to a particular audience, just as any community’s policies would whether intentionally or not, and “Beehaw” as in the people that make up the community are going to have political leanings within it—that’s just the plain and simple nature of people having opinions they bring along with them.

I can’t speak for @Gaywallet nor Beehaw leadership at large, but @alyaza slipped right in as I was about to say: it wouldn’t surprise me if “we do not know what the political leanings of most of our users are” is less speaking literally and more along the lines of “we’d rather allow the lay user describe their political leaning than we prescribe a political leaning on them.” I suppose a census is in order when the dust settles a bit more 🤓.

–

Trends and Leanings aside, I think the most important role leadership can take here is to make sure this is a space that not only allows the lay user community to define itself, but allows users to also go against that grain. I suspect we’re making progress toward Door #2 rather than #1. It’s absolutely worth emphasizing that kind of conversation remains important, however. Not necessarily as something that’s prescriptive like guidelines, but at minimum as a conversation the likes of “This is what the community typically seems to value, this is what it typically seems to protest. This is what seems to average out as its strengths, and these are its blindspots. What are we doing right, and how might we better ourselves to help make A More Perfect Community?”