Fediverse won't replace Reddit as long as Lemmy is the main platform being promoted
Fediverse won't replace Reddit as long as Lemmy is the main platform being promoted
Think about things from the point of view of someone who has never used Reddit or the fediverse, but you've heard about them both from recent news articles and want to see what they are about.
Reddit:- You Google Reddit and your first result is Reddit.com. You click the link and are presented with the front page. You from scroll from a few hours and end up signing up and staying.
Lemmy:- You Google Lemmy and your first result is a wiki article for Lemmy Kilmister... Your second result might be join-lemmy.org, which you're smart enough to realise it's probably more likely what the news is about.
You click join-lemmy.org and are presented with a page of information about the fediverse, links to set up a server and pictures of code...
There is very little chance you're going to investigate further.
If we want the fediverse to replace Reddit then either
A) Lemmy needs to improve its initial impression and Search engine optimization
B) We should be promoting a different platform with a better initial first impression.
I'd recommend kbin personally as it gives the same sort of experience as Reddit from the initial interaction.
You're viewing a single thread.
I recommend kbin just because some of the people behind Lemmy are vocal far left wing. I want to support more moderates in the world.
agree. Part of why I liked reddit was that I could customize my feed to ignore political diatribe (left and right) and just read the feeds that interest me. Lemmy is so infested with leftists that it spills over into every part of their community
One is the instances is owned by people who praise Stalin. Lemmy.world is not. And the code is open source so Lemmy is not really owned by anyone. All you have to do is switch instances.
It worries me that you get a bunch of downvotes for this. People are way too accepting of political biases if they're in the direction they prefer.
Because it implies that basic, milquetoast progressive values are "far left".
In my experience, lemmy.ml and feddit.de (for example) are in more left wing then milquetoast progressives. It's faszinating and refreshing, and I don't mind people speaking their minds. But I prefer moderate, too.
I would rather say that the average Redditor is milquetoast progressive. Heck, I start to really enjoy this phrase 😉.
As my feed is populated by a lot of German threads it is worth to note that moderate depends a lot on the country you are from. Bernie Sanders would probably be considered part of the moderate left in most of Europe while he is considered to be far left in the USA.
It also depends about what specific topic we are talking about.
In many places in Europe, being a social democrat when it comes to economy (like Bernie) might be considered pretty moderate. But then certain attitudes about non-binary pronouns or supporting special considerations for specific groups of people, are seen closer to "far left".
You don't see the amount of virtue signaling in Europe that you see in USA media productions, for example.
No, no there are literally tankies. Lemmy.ml the ml means marxist-leninist and lemmygrad.ml is just straight up tankie CCP apologists
What's left wing about simping for dictators? Just because they called their countries "communist" to keep people from realizing, they were both effectively totalitarian dictatorships, and that's about as right as it gets.
@Crankpork they're left wing dictators? The wings are about economic policies. Communism is an ultra far left economic system like pure laissez-faire capitalism is an ultra far right economic system. You can be authoritarian or libertarian in either group. Or you can have more moderate economic views and still also have more authoritarian enforcement or extreme libertarian/anarchic lack of enforcement
I mean, that's exactly my point though. People seem to be knee jerk assuming that the "leftist" accusations against the .ml instances are standard issue right wing hyperbole against progressive liberals and that's not the case. It's just as much that progressives are complaining because we have no interest in associating with tankies.
I think the only real way for anyone to get it is to experience it. I thought it was bullshit propaganda too and I also thought I was relatively far left before first arriving at the .ml domain and further lemmygrad. I am still kind of surprised that we have a community out there that large that seems to legitimately identify with the 'tankie' ideology.
It's a bit of a culture shock realizing that you might just be a progressive moderate.
That's actually really good thing. In the U.S. not wanting to kill trans people makes you a "far left" person according to right-wingers. real "far left" people are pretty nuts, man. The vast majority of us are moderates who are now labeled as "far left" in the U.S. political discourse.
I dunno mate. Does identifying with a side lay out your viewpoints on every issue? I live in a communist-ruled state in India and I know of communists who don't agree with the trans ideology. Due to religion and stuff, we also have far-right people here that consider trans people as gods.
Oh don't even get me started on the downvote brigades from angry leftists around here. Don't you dare hold a moderate opinion around them, or they call you a nazi and tell you to go back to 4chan. You can read my post history. All I've ever expressed is the same sentiment expressed here, and I've been met with nothing but absolute vitriol.
Your post history shows you are solidly on the right end of the spectrum based on your expressed opinions while trying to justify yourself as moderate.
How? Why would you resort to lying? I'm pro choice, I despise Trump, I'm pro gay and trans rights, I believe in UBI for everyone (as well as keeping the free market in place), pro legalization (of every drug), pretty anti gun but I still believe it's peoples right to own them, I think police should be completely reformed and prisons fundamentally changed to be places of rehabilitation. What opinion of mine shows I'm on the right end of the spectrum? Because I believe in nuance and civil discourse? That I think all humans deserve forgiveness and a chance to grow and become better? Please, do enlighten me.
The forced distillation of every single position to being somewhere on this "left" to "right" spectrum is the single worst thing to happen to modern political discourse, IMO.
I'm a fan of the "8 Views" test, which tries to position views along four different axes instead of just one. Four is still too few but it's way better than what we've got now.
Because we saw what happens with Reddit. People come in claiming to be “moderate”, and very quickly shit like T_D starts popping up. Also center of the road politics in the US has had rights taken away from millions of people in just the past year, and it’s going to continue to erode them from more. I’m not telling you to change your political stance, but I am telling you that people see them as an attack because they have literally been attacked by “moderates”.
It's fair to want to ostracize those who claim to be "moderate" who are anything but, absolutely. Concerning civil and political rights, there should BE no moderate. Either you support people's fundamental rights or you do not. Either you support everyone's right to love, sex, and associate with consenting adults or you do not. Either you support people's right to choose what to do with their bodies or you do not. There's little left to discuss.
Having said that, the US (and the world generally) has a terrible record, left or right, in supporting people's civil and political rights. I'm overjoyed that at least left leaning folk now support those rights, but it wasn't a decade or two ago that those on the left of the political spectrum were parroting many of the same things that the right now parrots. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." "Don't ask, don't tell." So while I am glad they've shifted, I'm always concerned that if the political winds shift again, those in power will sacrifice individual rights in the name of maintaining said power as they did before they decided that advocating for our rights was going to keep them elected.
"Moderate" doesn't necessarily mean centrist or unalienable, it's antithesis is extremist. Being moderate and supporting peoples rights to be who they are just means taking a more practical and slow approach.
You need both moderate and more extreme views of progressivism, otherwise you get drowned in either. They support each other, they don't necessarily oppose each other.
Moderate has taken a negative connotation in the US, alas, where it means "okay with hurting some people but not as many as THOSE folk." Moderation in approach, I can get behind depending on the issue.
What you call "moderate" is likely viewed very differently by other people, since I assume you're from the US, and US politics has become a far-right fucking shitstorm. The overton window has shifted so much over there that "moderates" are degenerate cunts to more reasonable people.
I think part of it is that leftists (myself included) don't like being lumped in with tankies. I didn't downvote though.
The lead devs of lemmy are tankies, basically meaning authoritarian communists of the genocide-apologist variety. They also run the lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml instances.
This is also why I signed up on kbin instead of on lemmy. The other lemmy instances are fine, but I don't want to contribute to the influence of the lemmy devs any more than necessary. Hopefully they try to pull something stupid and get forked off the project.
Why would anyone downvote for that reason though? That reason is why I upvoted. I'm firmly left-wing but absolutely not far enough that I can support their BS views.
Turns out people who work on open source in their free time to make the internet a better place for all are usually left wing, while the righties try to make money and fail.
I came to kbin hoping for exactly that, a moderate platform, and these upvote-downvote patterns are extremely concerning.
This you?
What's the moderate position between "trans people should not be allowed to exist in society" and "trans rights are human rights"? You have to understand every time you or anyone else says some shit like this you're basically crying that people are taking a position instead of just watching the right wing try to ruin peoples lives.
The supreme court literally ruled to allow businesses to discriminate against people based on sexuality yesterday.
The problem is that nobody (or at least very few people of actual influence) are legitimately saying that trans people shouldn't get to exist. I have yet to see any politician, for example, express such a belief.
Michael Knowles called for the "eradication" of transgenderism at CPAC this year. Please shut up (E: corrected the wording he used, because he said "eradication" not just that it shouldn't exist)
Was he talking about the people themselves, or the phenomenon of being transgender? That is a very important distinction.
No, it's not an important distinction. If you remove the ability of trans people to transition to their identified gender then you're relegating many of them to suicide.
What if they never wanted to transition in the first place?
Then they don't transition. Unless you want to make up some imaginary enemy to validate your hate.
I firmly believe everyone has the right to live freely and to find their own path, provided they don't harm others. Hate speech and violence have no place in our society, and I wholeheartedly stand with the trans community in advocating for their protection.
Nonetheless, here's a viewpoint I have that I know is not accepted, but I'll share it anyway. I believe the compulsion of speech, particularly insisting that all of society adapt their language to accommodate individual identities, is a terrible approach. The notion of forced speech is problematic to me, and worries me greatly.
That said, I believe it's important to work towards a society that respects every person, but without mandating how we perceive them. Life's journey is all about confronting adversity, and part of this involves learning to navigate the world as it is, not necessarily as we'd like it to be. Instead of dictating specific definitions, it might be more beneficial to cultivate a culture of empathy, understanding, and open dialogue around these issues. This perspective is unpopular and contentious, but it is a conversation that we should be willing to engage in.
Anyways that's what I see as the moderate take, and it's what I believe. I had to tiptoe pretty hard there and I'm sure what I said still comes across as hate speech to some but I don't feel it is. It's just my opinion. I wish there was a place I could express it and have an open debate with people about it. We can't eliminate half of society, and we're going to have to learn how to empathize with people we disagree with in order to actually see where they are coming from.
That's a lotta words for "I don't respect what people want to be called". When you call someone by the wrong name and they correct you, is that also compelled speech to you? Because that's all pronouns are. By your definitions all of language is compelled speech, because you're being forced into using specific words to communicate.
It can be your opinion all you want, but it's one you should evaluate and change, because it doesn't make any goddamn sense.
Nonetheless, here's a viewpoint I have that I know is not accepted, but I'll share it anyway. I believe the compulsion of speech, particularly insisting that all of society adapt their language to accommodate individual identities, is a terrible approach. The notion of forced speech is problematic to me, and worries me greatly.
Is this the fucking Jordan Peterson position? Whose speech has been compelled? A man walked into a Philosophy of Gender class this week in Canada and stabbed three people, so sorry if I'm a lot more concerned with the constant hate speech being levied against LGBTQ+ people than I am with the anomalous concept of "compelled speech" which has not as of yet been an issue and only exists in the fever dream of transphobes who want to actively misgender people while working in public positions in Canada.
I agree with you, but this is a really bad counterargument to what they said. Even widely agreed politeness conventions to a degree 'compel' speech, so the debate is really around what speech is acceptable for society to encourage/suppress, rather than whether cultural changes are changing what people are compelled to say. Also, I don't think they said anything that suggested they are more concerned by that than hateful violence?