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.
Nope, not a sign of being right-wing at all, let alone “far.”
I call that a lie, because I don’t believe it’s a good-faith mistake.
Still don’t feel like scrolling around to find others
It isn’t at all a lie. Us disagreeing doesn’t make me a liar, nor does it mean I made a mistake. I’ve been honest and good-faith, and you’ve been malding this entire thread.
TLDR (because I get the feeling you people just read/reply to/vote on random parts and skip others)
You were lying. If not, you would have owned up to the mistake, but now you’re doubling down on the lie, trying to full-on gaslight me.
I didn’t make a mistake, and I didn’t lie. I disagree with you, that doesn’t mean I’m gaslighting you.
If you read the full reply instead of the TLDR, and admit you were wrong, I might believe I was wrong and it was an honest mistake, but I’m absolutely sure you’re not going to do that.
If you read the fully reply instead of the TLDR, and reply with a false counter-argument, you can probably find more success in wasting my time, feeling camaraderie with your fellow bullies, and confusing the undecided.
But I’m also pretty sure you’re not going to do that, because it might be difficult to come up with a false counter-argument that doesn’t feel shitty to post at this point. So instead, all you’ve done in the reply I’m replying to is repeat yourself, which is a pretty weak gaslighting attempt.
I wasn’t wrong, there’s nothing to admit. You can continue to insult my character and claim I’m trying to gaslight you, but thay isn’t the case.
Just stumbled upon this subthread, you probably figured out by now, but that user may not be worth replying to at this point.
Well done on keeping civil, that was impressive.
Oh I’m aware, but thank you.
I am always worth replying to, but good-faith replies are the ones that would be worth replying with, not this bullshit.
It is
Nope.
This still seems dishonest
deleted by creator
Again, I don’t think it’s in good faith, or “honest.”
You probably know you have the “wings” flipped - the “left” wants “human rights,” the “right” (you) are individuals who each only want rights for themselves, not all humans. These things can be conflated by being like “I want rights for me and my gay friends, another arm of the right wing hates gay people, that makes LGBT and supporters left wing, and that makes everyone who believes in human rights right wing because the gay haters are humans and that would give them rights, so I’m the left and if you believe the people who hate gays should have rights, that makes you the right, that’s why the word for it is the right” and you could genuinely believe all that, in pure confusion. Or a million other ways. LGBT stuff is just one of a million things you could decide to base your “left-right” views on, while ignoring the overall directional difference of “human rights letting me be in charge of more stuff” vs “me in charge of more stuff because people who are less than my equal should be at my mercy”
But you DEFINITELY know some of the words people call “slurs” these days are pretty common words to use without being “far” in either direction. Once you added the word “far,” you left less than zero wiggle room to entertain the possibility you’re genuinely confused here. What’s happening is you’re blatantly lying, and doubling down, trying to gaslight me about it.
I’m being entirely honest and good-faith, bad-faith is calling me right-wing. I’m a communist. When I say slurs are common in the far-right, I mean exactly that, slurs are common in the far-right.
You’re a “communist” that refuses to help make communism happen because you’re more attached to censorship.
That’s called being right-wing.
Left-wing people are not attached to censorship, so when we say “I’m a communist” we mean “I am actively trying to do communism,” not “I would try to do communism if I could find a way that’s more compatible with censorship”
What on Earth do you mean by “making communism happen?” I do think misinformation and bigotry should be censored, this isn’t at all incompatible with communism. I do org work, that’s what communists do.
You think we should redefine “slur” to include common words, and then redefine “right wing” to mean “people who use what we now call slurs,” and then redefine “far” to mean “near” or “middle”
These things do not help achieve communism - we need honesty in order to achieve communism, not lies
No.
I don’t think we should “redefine slurs.” Slurs are slurs.
I don’t want to redefine right-wing to mean people who use slurs. I stated that slur-usage is most common among the far-right.
I’ve been honest this entire time, and you’ve been picking fights and dismissing anyone’s input by saying that you didn’t ask for it. This kind of behavior would be considered wrecker behavior, and would be corrected if you were actually in a competent org.
I don’t agree with your definition, and my opinion was prevalent and dictionary-recognized before yours. Would you also like to redefine “redefine” or are you quite simply what’s called lying?
Right - that’s trying to redefine “right-wing” as people who use what you now define as “slurs,” and redefining “far” to mean “near” or “middle,” since you now use “slurs” as a label for normal, common words. Why make me repeat this?