I’ve been trying Lemmy for a little while and wasn’t sure how to feel about it.
Today, I wanted to start blocking the most high-censorship instances until I could find a fully zero-censorship instance and simply block all the ones with censorship. Filter bots, not people.
When I looked into it further, I found out there are no zero-censorship instances, because Lemmy relies on a broken “federation” system where each instance is supposed to be able to fetch posts from other instances, but it’s never been finished to reach a fully working state. Lemmy’s official docs say you can’t even do federation over Tor at all. This means it uses DNS, so it won’t actually allow Lemmy instances to fetch posts from each other freely, it just gets blocked instantly and easily, every time the authorities feel like blocking anything.
So you can only ever have the “average joe lemmy” and “average joe reddit” with everything approved by the authorities, and then “tor copies of lemmy” and “tor copies of reddit” where you have free speech but you can only reach other nerds.
People seem to think Lemmy is different because this weird censorship fetish is extremely popular and most of you are happy to see bans happen to certain people, not just bots, so a small Lemmy that censors certain people feels fundamentally different from a big reddit that censors more people. But it’s the exact same thing, it’s reddit.
When reddit was smaller, you could say basically anything you wanted there, they just wouldn’t let it reach the main audience. Then it got too big, and any tiny part of the audience you could reach would be too big, so they won’t let you talk at all.
Lemmy is now the small part of reddit where you can say whatever you want, separated from the main audience, until too much growth happens and you have to move again.
It’s not actually a solution to reddit. It’s not designed to be different, it’s designed to match the past today and then match reddit’s present tomorrow, while being part of a system that’s about the same in past, present, and future.
Last year, this year, and next year, you’re posting somewhere it won’t be seen by many people, and the system that charges people for ambulance rides is getting another year of ambulance ride revenue, facing no organized resistance. There’s no difference here.
Lemmy urgently needs federation between onion service instances and DNS addresses in order to actually do what most users seem to wish it would do: allow discussion outside what the corporate authorities allow, while outgrowing reddit & helping undo the damage social media has done to human communication.

Are you using “habit” euphemistically, or do you literally think that’s a habit of mine?
Can you answer earnestly, not with irony or a joke?
And can you explain why you posted the reply I’m replying to right now?
Yes, i think you have a tendency to take words very literally.
And I wasn’t being ironic or joking there.
Also still wondering why you posted the reply in question
For real though?
Does a person arguing in good faith really, truly make you assume they’re bad with euphemisms?
Either that’s a perception issue you need to work on, or you’re not being entirely sincere.
Yes, for real
Dude, the entire thread is disagreeing or supposedly “not understanding” you at this point. This really should be an “Am I out of touch?” moment for you.
Then, as I said, that’s a perception issue you need to work on. I don’t believe you, though.
So manmade flying machines can’t exist, because in the past that was the majority opinion? And of course, the first popular religion has never changed?
“Ad populum fallacy”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
How am I supposed to disprove that I was not being sarcastic?
“Am I out of touch? No, it’s everyone else who is wrong”
Not my problem, why the fuck are you asking me?
Correct, but you seem to be trying to implicitly suggest argumentum ad populum isn’t a fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Why do you believe it’s not a fallacy? And why not save me the time of asking by just explaining the opinions you interject with?
You keep asking me to somehow disprove it.
It’s more “know the room”. People don’t really prioritise hosting on TOR, and don’t care about your weird desire to see uncensored instances group together.
Incorrect, and why did you put this after a quote of yet another one of my questions you’ve ignored?
No, it was like I said: you seemed to be trying to implicitly suggest argumentum ad populum isn’t a fallacy.
Incorrect. I am not alone. You should be feeling a lot of embarrassment about these repetitive attempts to gaslight me.