cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25427659

Enjoy a RARE piece of original content from your’s truly, instead of a repost from deep in my dust-covered downloads folder

  • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    8·
    3 hours ago

    Lol I love that SJW is listed as right wing for not explicitly being anticapitalist. Gave me a good laugh.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    1 hour ago

    I strayed into dbzero without knowing what it was. Took me a few minutes of feeling like I was in the Twilight Zone before realizing they were all Libertarians and had a good laugh at myself for accidentally taking them seriously.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
      6·
      2 hours ago

      It was nazi and had fucking loli shit on it. That made LITERALLY every instance defederate. Even the ones that were neutral said fuck you to them.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      244·
      8 hours ago

      Was it exploding heads?

      Believe so. Fuck them though, they don’t even deserve to have their name written in the meme.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        2 minutes ago

        There was Wolfballs, which started out as a right-leaning free speech instance, but was obviously quickly overrun by trolls and fascists, so everyone defederated them and the owner decided to shut it down. As a result all the problematic people including the mods from Wolfballs moved to Exploding-Heads, which welcomed them with open arms despite also not being originally a pure right-wing instance. And yeah obviously they got defederated as well then…

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.ukMEnglish
    122·
    7 hours ago

    I suppose the fun starts trying to slot other instances in there.

    So reply with an instance and thrash out it’s place on the graph.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
        3·
        2 hours ago

        Arguably dbzer0 would be a bit further towards the libertarian right, although still in the bottom left corner.

              • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
                1·
                54 minutes ago

                “Libertarian socialism” is quite a bit broader than “ancom” and there are plenty of anarcho-individualists that out of individualist considerations consider themselves socialists.

                Lets take piracy as an example:

                An ancom would likely argue that this is bad under the current circumstances and that the creators should be fairly compensated or rather have their needs covered so that they are free to make stuff. However they would likely also concede that piracy from large corporations would be somewhat ok as large privately owned corporations are a bad thing and thus don’t deserve any protection.

                An anarcho-individualist would be likely in favour of piracy even under the current circumstances as it usually benefits the person pirating much more than it hurts the people working on the digital media, but maybe concede that you shouldn’t do it for small individual creators trying to make a living.

                So you see that the final outcome isn’t that different, but an ancom would likely shy away from openly promoting piracy of digital media.

                • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                  1·
                  44 minutes ago

                  Wouldn’t an ancom not believe in ownership — and therefore think piracy is not inherently immoral? Obviously they believe in community distribution and mutual aid so they would believe that if people involved with the creation of those media were struggling they would help those people, but not necessarily through the proxy of buying the movie but through general mutual aid.

  • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
    163·
    9 hours ago

    Excellent! Although you might need to shift LW more fully into the blue if they decide to implement the Flat Earth proposal that they strongly tried to push a month ago, before as you say walking that back in response to the enormous outcry against it. Were they to continue though, that would radically shift the balance of everything across all of Lemmy if all of those community mods gave up and had to find new homes elsewhere.

    • RandomVideos@programming.devEnglish
      2·
      3 hours ago

      How would that place them in blue and not just yellow?

      I dont think you get more freedom of speech when becoming more authoritarian

      • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
        2·
        3 hours ago

        To be clear, I meant the blue of this compass, even though in many parts of the world it may differ, like in the USA red = maga while blue = liberal, but in the color scheme of this graphic those are reversed.

        As for whether it would shift things more towards the yellow, I didn’t even really consider that option: LW was just already split between red and blue and I was saying that it would shift more towards the authoritarian side, as in conservatives would then be allowed to spout their talking points whereas right now most conservative opinions are silenced (bc the vast majority of us are simply tired of hearing them spouted not in a good faith manner). But yeah I suppose it would also shift it in the libertarian axis as well.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      204·
      9 hours ago

      Legitimately think that they simply did not think the proposal through. It was pretty nakedly an attempt to push back at radical echo-chamber communities, without understanding that rules cut both ways, and in the process of trying to justify and clarify it without being ‘ideological’, managed to just highlight how absurd the proposed rule was to begin with.

      The two big problems with .world’s admins is that they’re very much amateurs (which is a hard thing to avoid in our scenario here), and that they, like many centrists, have trouble discerning where their ideology begins and ends. They feel the need to phrase things in ‘fair’ and non-discriminatory terms, but in doing so, often blunder into self-contradictory positions, because ultimately, discrimination (in the sense of discerning and marking) between views is what all rules are based on. The kind of “The law is the law” attitude that people who are accustomed to following, but not making, law, are prone to. One hopes that a mixture of experience and pushback will improve them, with time.

      But yeah, had they implemented that, they’d go more auth and right, and I’d probably be packing up all my comms to go to another instance. Again.

      • Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        101·
        8 hours ago

        I’m going to quote @simple@lemm.ee on their comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/14430767

        This is like the third time LW tried to be front-and-center in deciding how conversations should happen on Lemmy. You are the most popular Lemmy instance and most content is on your instance. This isn’t an experimental safe space instance to dictate how social media should work. Please understand that any weirdly aggressive stances you take affects everyone.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          72·
          8 hours ago

          This isn’t an experimental safe space instance to dictate how social media should work. Please understand that any weirdly aggressive stances you take affects everyone.

          Yeah, basically. Which is why the pushback is important, and, though it reflects a serious paucity of understanding, it’s also good that they’re willing to retract in response to pushback.

          They’re slow learners, and perhaps everyone is in a position of power, but we’ll see if we can teach them.

      • Frank Casa@frank.casa
        21·
        5 hours ago

        @PugJesus

        they, like many centrists, have trouble discerning where their ideology begins and ends.

        I thought a centrist was someone between “Don’t be Stalin” and “Don’t be Hitler.”

        • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          3 hours ago

          Something like 80-95% of people on planet earth are centrists, so yeah.

          Though to reactionaries on social media, it’s considered a pejorative term I suppose? Like people who dare to use something other than Arch Linux, even if required to at work.

          We haven’t quite left behind the “enragement increases profits” mindset that we all were taught on Reddit, to allow for more nuancer POVs other than “oThEr SiDe BaD”. Meh, it’s human nature.

      • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        8 hours ago

        managed to just highlight how absurd the proposed rule was to begin with.

        It was (unintentionally) the best thing they could do to show users it was a terrible blanket rule and also showed that they weren’t smart enough to notice it was a terrible idea before making it public.

      • OpenStars@piefed.socialEnglish
        21·
        8 hours ago

        I could see that. I legit thought it was a good proposal to suggest at least this part:

        If they’re just saying something you don’t like, respectfully, and they’re not spamming it, use your words instead of your moderation abilities.

        Edit: I was probably overstating the case - it could be good, I suppose? Then again, why not leave it to the mods to decide what they want for their own communities? Yet the instance admins should also have a say what kinds of communities exist on their instance, especially if legality of content is part of the issue. It’s definitely a balancing act no matter what.

        Especially in light of some of the stuff that came before. But it definitely went off the deep end with the likes of:

        We’re going to allow some “flat earth” comments. We’re going to force some moderators to accept some “flat earth” comments.

        Woah, not the best choice of words there perhaps even if the concept itself was meant legitimately.

        I would really hate to see the mods of e.g. !tenforward@lemmy.world have to put up with crap like that, or as you said it’s more likely that they would simply step down as mods, and then hopefully migrate the community elsewhere. Unlike the debacle with 196, such a move there would be fully supported by the community members, in that case, I have zero doubts.

        • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          8 hours ago

          All you need to consider whether ‘just let people post and you have to accept it’ is a good idea is to think about the worst thing people could post. Flat earth was supposed to be an example of harmless stuff that was being koderated, but the blanket rule also applies to people promoting ‘age is just a number’ and ‘white people are superior’ and ‘[minority group] should be exterminated’.

          They could have made it clear that you have to allow opposing views that don’t promote harm to others, but based on their response to the pushback I don’t think they thought that far ahead.

        • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          7 hours ago

          I literally missed the whole kerfuffle and am very glad I did.

          Pardon me while I lol

    • Frank Casa@frank.casa
      21·
      5 hours ago

      Flat earth? Were they trolling or really believed that stuff? A lot of flat earthers are just trolls that don’t even believe what they are posting. They’re just trying to get a reaction.

        • Frank Casa@frank.casa
          21·
          5 hours ago

          Interesting. So, basically allowing both.

          It is good to have open discourse, but generally with things like this, the most vocal and active people determine what is acceptable or not. Rules or not, when everyone in a community disagrees with someone, most people go somewhere else sooner or later. Unless they are a troll or evangelist or masochist.

          Open discussion can work in some communities, but there has to be a mutual interesting in finding the truth. If, instead, everyone is out to promote their agenda, it does not work so well.