before they were defederated by beehaw due to trolling issues, thenthedonlald showed up, and now exploding heads? what is happening right now?
before they were defederated by beehaw due to trolling issues, thenthedonlald showed up, and now exploding heads? what is happening right now?
You don’t express your right to vote then you support whatever the majority of those who did voted for.
People asked for one instance to be defederated, the vote happened, aye won and now there’s one or two new conversations about how it’s not a good thing to defederate any instances, always from people who, when you check their history, are active on right wing communities, support defederation of other instances, believe conspiracy theories or any other thing that makes them suspicious in their intent.
I counted 43 ayes. 43 vs over 2000 active users. That is why those early votes should not and most likely will not be honored.
deleted by creator
Let’s have a vote on rhe number of new users required to cancel all votes and start over! I think it should be a % because otherwise as the place grows we would end up voting again on a much more regular basis.
All in favor say aye
All against say nay
Should we cancel votes on a periodic basis as more people join the instance?
Votes should be held in a way that makes it apparent for users that they are happening, for example by giving a server-wide announcement. They shouls further run for at least a week, if not longer. They also need to be clear in their wording, concise and easy to find.
There’s a sticky in the main community to announce the creation of the Agora and all the kinks about votes are being worked on already.
Worked on, not fixed. It’s an important distinction.
You know your need to start by working on stuff before they’re fixed, right?
Not cancel the votes but new people will ofc have the possibility to bring existing rules newly to discussion. It may be totally reasonable to review rules, assuming they can get outdated. And ideally, yes, if it was a real community (real verifyable persons) then any new member must be asked if they had any objections to the existing rules, and given the opportunity to newly discuss them (or add to a constantly ongoing discussion). It just isn’t all too practical in certain circumstances.
Or people should understand that decentralization means that if they don’t agree with the rules on an instance then they can join an instance with rules they agree with and if their current instance goes in a direction they disagree with they can join another instance.
People are just attached to a username and, in this instance’s case, to the cool name.
Well, i was implicitely talking about sh.itjust.works, where the owner just opened up all but their most vital rules to be discussed and decided upon by the users. This applies regardless of the age of a user account. … And then i was talking about an ideal, in-person situation … which we don’t have here.
Nice strawman.
Just pointing out what is easily seen by looking at the post history of people
I actually have to agree with you, I don’t like defederation because the way that all dictatorships got into power was by manipulating the flow of information.
OP and the person making the strawman are bad faith actors trying to lie their way to returning to “Web 2.0”, or for the evulz.
I’m probably as left as you can get socially and I always advocate for inclusivity, and am against defederation because then you’re causing them to just have an echo chamber and then any unknowing party on that instance is just going to get blasted with only that shit and then you’ve just done the recruiting job for them.
The recruiting job happens outside of their echo chamber, not inside, giving them more platforms (social medias) is what caused a surge in the far right movement.