• BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lemmy world just removed their non-discrimination clause and one of the admins is (poorly) justifying it in a thread about it. I wouldn’t cheer quite yet.

    • Yote.zip@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is only a problem because lemmy.world has become one of the centralized hubs for Lemmy, which means that jettisoning them has a larger impact. The failing of lemmy.world is a reminder that we should be intentionally spreading out to smaller instances, that way a bad admin/instance can be cut off without losing much value. Additionally, by lemmy.world/lemmy.ml/etc having such a grip on the core of Lemmy, they are emboldened to make bad changes without fearing consequences.

      • nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The more users spread out into smaller, more easily censored instances, the more the remaining fragmented bits of the Lemmy ecosystem still talking to each other will turn into echo chambers full of groupthink. This low threshold for defederation is the Fediverse’s greatest weakness. Sure, it’s possible to work around it—but how many separate Lemmy accounts are users expected to create? Even if you have accounts on every instance of note you’d need to manually cross-post messages to each balkanized server and their comment sections wouldn’t be shared—exactly the sort of thing federation was meant to avoid.

        Email, another federated system, has this same weakness. It’s why it’s increasingly difficult to run your own (outgoing) email server which other systems will accept messages from without going through a well-known third party like Google. Especially when trying to push content to a large audience (e.g. mailing lists), which happens to be Lemmy’s core function.