This is a super weird take. Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances. Our instance, for example, has a really high percentage of users with ADHD, ASD and other neurodivergences. We also have a ton of LGBTQI+ folks. So all Iām saying is donāt be too quick to paint Lemmy users with a broad brush.
If Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed.
Lemmy isnāt about creating a monoculture with a fixed set of values. Itās about having diverse communities and instances with their own sets of values and rules. Thatās the beauty of Lemmy and the fediverse. Demanding that we adopt and police some universal āpolitenessā code across every instance that prohibits the use of the word ābroā simply because thatās what you want is really quite a bizarre notion. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates. So no, it doesnāt need to be fixed. It is working as intended. Diversity is a big strength of the fediverse. We actively donāt want such things in place, because thatās what happened at places like Reddit, owned by big corpos who suddenly decided they wanted everything advertiser friendly for their IPO.
If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you. But cāmonā¦ all this judgmental language against whole communities of people simply because some folks dared to disagree with your opinion on this topic? It seems like the only thing you have done in this post is make yourself seem even more unreasonable about the topic. None of your responses show a trace of self-reflection, or acceptance of the different perspectives that were shared with you, which is kinda disappointing. If you adopt the position that you are always right and everyone who criticizes you is wrong, then what does that make you? You should do some self crit.
Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instancesā¦ so donāt paint with a broad brush.
I never said Lemmy lacked diversity. I explicitly wrote that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. My point was about specific servers that embrace that culture. Those are the ones I will de-federate from. Thatās not a broad brushāitās a filter.
Demanding that we adopt and police some universal āpolitenessā codeā¦ is a bizarre notion.
I didnāt demand anything universal. Thatās a strawman. Iām not lobbying for every instance to adopt my preferences. I said my server will have standards, and I will apply them consistently. Thatās the very opposite of imposing uniformityāitās me choosing how I run my space.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates.
On the contrary, it shows I understand it perfectly. Federation is built on choice. The right to set boundaries for my serverāincluding who I federate withāis not a misunderstanding, itās the entire point of federation.
So no, it doesnāt need to be fixed. It is working as intended.
You misread my statement. I didnāt say Lemmy needs fixing outright. I said: if Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed. Thatās a conditional. It only applies in the hypothetical scenario where bro culture is inseparable from Lemmy.
We actively donāt want such things in place, because thatās what happened at Redditā¦
Again, this ignores what I wrote. Iām not calling for top-down enforcement or advertiser-friendly sanitization. Iām calling for exercising my own discretion on my own server. Thatās literally the opposite of Redditās centralized approach.
If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you.ā
Exactly. Thatās what I said I would do. Iām glad you recognize that, but your comment tries to paint that decision as unreasonable when itās actually how the Fediverse is designed to function.
All this judgmental language against whole communitiesā¦
Thatās projection. I didnāt condemn all communities, just those that embrace a style I donāt want to interact with. Thereās nothing ājudgmentalā about drawing lines for the environment Iām responsible for maintaining. Every server admin does this, even if they call it by softer names.
Youāve made yourself seem unreasonableā¦ no trace of self-reflection.
Thatās an unfair characterization. Self-reflection is exactly why I framed my statement with an if. I left room for nuance, acknowledged diversity, and clarified my standards. You ignored those elements and replaced them with a caricature.
If you adopt the position that you are always rightā¦ you should do some self-crit.
Nobody said Iām always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. Thatās not about being universally āright.ā Itās about being consistent with the principles I believe in. If thatās not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you donāt have to engage with me at all.
Nobody said Iām always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. Thatās not about being universally āright.ā Itās about being consistent with the principles I believe in.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards [those who] disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
For example, in regard to people who (perfectly reasonably) responded negatively towards your private messages, you said:
Where I misjudged thingsāand I see this clearly nowāwas in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They donāt. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, itās best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation wonāt lead anywhere productive.
And the only reason you had for calling those users ātoxicā is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy? They are not the toxic ones in this scenario.
A ābroā is the person who laughs at cruelty because itās entertaining. [ā¦]
I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word ābroā, or āsisā or basically anything else. All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
If thatās not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you donāt have to engage with me at all.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them arenāt to my taste.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
Pointing out where I draw boundaries isnāt disdaināitās clarity. Iāve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I wonāt do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (ācool story broā) is just harmless slang. Thatās not disdain, thatās naming behaviour for what it is.
And the only reason you had for calling those users ātoxicā is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy?ā*
Thatās not accurate. I didnāt call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. Thatās different from disagreement. Youāre collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and theyāre not.
A ābroā is the person who laughs at cruelty because itās entertainingā¦ I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word ābro.ā
This isnāt hyperbole. āBroā is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:
Fake familiarity (ācool story broā from strangers isnāt friendship).
Diminishment and mockery (it often carries sarcasm).
Gender exclusion (assumes a male default in-group).
Gender assumption (applies a label regardless of identity).
Thatās not me inventing baggage out of thin airāitās how the word is used in real contexts.
All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
No. Iām not vilifying people for disagreement. Iām drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. Thatās the job of an admin: curating the space theyāre responsible for. The word ābroā as commonly used isnāt just āa commonplace word.ā Itās a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. Thatās why Iām flagging it.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them arenāt to my taste.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. Thatās a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. Thereās nothing inherently wrong with thatāevery admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that Iām somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesnāt exist.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. Thatās a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. Thereās nothing inherently wrong with thatāevery admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that Iām somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesnāt exist.
Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. Thatās how a community should function. Thatās how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. Iād last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so Iāll leave it at that.
Youāre describing elections, not the absence of hierarchy. That may make your server representative, but it doesnāt make it non-hierarchical. Someone still fits the role of admin, someone still has the keys to the machine, and someone can still pull the plug on the entire server at any moment.
Thatās not egalitarianismāthatās hierarchy with window dressing. Elections donāt erase the structure. They just decide who occupies it. And the structure itself carries the same asymmetries: technical control, federation policies, enforcement of rules, the ability to de-federate or delete outright.
Which is fineāserver administration is hierarchical by design. But it undercuts your attempt to paint my stance as authoritarian. Iām upfront about what the role entails: curating and enforcing standards in the space Iām responsible for. Youāre doing the same thing, just phrased differently.
And that flourish about āpointless debating pointsā is cowardice. Youāve been caught in your own contradictionāpreaching anarchism while holding the keys to a serverāand rather than face it, you try to wave it away. Thatās not an argument. Thatās an admission youāve got nothing left.
If I abused my position I would fully expect to be held accountable by one of our other admins. And Iāve also reversed mod decisions due to user feedback. But in order to do that youāve got to be open and responsive to feedback in the first place. But when you are the sole admin there is nobody to keep your ego in check. I still had that [left], I guess.
Thank you for describing it as a flourish, I liked that part.
You are making a ton of assumptions based total ignorance of how dbzer0 is operated and governed, even how many admins we have, or of the history of how it ended up under db0ās project domain. And itās not my job to educate you, especially because I can tell already that nothing I can say will disabuse you of your self-serving preconceptions.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator ([email protected] being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
This is a super weird take. Lemmy is full of diverse communities and instances. Our instance, for example, has a really high percentage of users with ADHD, ASD and other neurodivergences. We also have a ton of LGBTQI+ folks. So all Iām saying is donāt be too quick to paint Lemmy users with a broad brush.
Lemmy isnāt about creating a monoculture with a fixed set of values. Itās about having diverse communities and instances with their own sets of values and rules. Thatās the beauty of Lemmy and the fediverse. Demanding that we adopt and police some universal āpolitenessā code across every instance that prohibits the use of the word ābroā simply because thatās what you want is really quite a bizarre notion. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Lemmy and the fediverse operates. So no, it doesnāt need to be fixed. It is working as intended. Diversity is a big strength of the fediverse. We actively donāt want such things in place, because thatās what happened at places like Reddit, owned by big corpos who suddenly decided they wanted everything advertiser friendly for their IPO.
If you want to be lord and master of your own corner of the internet, nobody is stopping you. But cāmonā¦ all this judgmental language against whole communities of people simply because some folks dared to disagree with your opinion on this topic? It seems like the only thing you have done in this post is make yourself seem even more unreasonable about the topic. None of your responses show a trace of self-reflection, or acceptance of the different perspectives that were shared with you, which is kinda disappointing. If you adopt the position that you are always right and everyone who criticizes you is wrong, then what does that make you? You should do some self crit.
I never said Lemmy lacked diversity. I explicitly wrote that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. My point was about specific servers that embrace that culture. Those are the ones I will de-federate from. Thatās not a broad brushāitās a filter.
I didnāt demand anything universal. Thatās a strawman. Iām not lobbying for every instance to adopt my preferences. I said my server will have standards, and I will apply them consistently. Thatās the very opposite of imposing uniformityāitās me choosing how I run my space.
On the contrary, it shows I understand it perfectly. Federation is built on choice. The right to set boundaries for my serverāincluding who I federate withāis not a misunderstanding, itās the entire point of federation.
You misread my statement. I didnāt say Lemmy needs fixing outright. I said: if Lemmy and bro culture are synonymous, then Lemmy has to be fixed. Thatās a conditional. It only applies in the hypothetical scenario where bro culture is inseparable from Lemmy.
Again, this ignores what I wrote. Iām not calling for top-down enforcement or advertiser-friendly sanitization. Iām calling for exercising my own discretion on my own server. Thatās literally the opposite of Redditās centralized approach.
Exactly. Thatās what I said I would do. Iām glad you recognize that, but your comment tries to paint that decision as unreasonable when itās actually how the Fediverse is designed to function.
Thatās projection. I didnāt condemn all communities, just those that embrace a style I donāt want to interact with. Thereās nothing ājudgmentalā about drawing lines for the environment Iām responsible for maintaining. Every server admin does this, even if they call it by softer names.
Thatās an unfair characterization. Self-reflection is exactly why I framed my statement with an if. I left room for nuance, acknowledged diversity, and clarified my standards. You ignored those elements and replaced them with a caricature.
Nobody said Iām always right. What I said is: these are my standards, and I will enforce them on my server. Thatās not about being universally āright.ā Itās about being consistent with the principles I believe in. If thatās not to your taste, the beauty of federation is that you donāt have to engage with me at all.
While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards [those who] disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
For example, in regard to people who (perfectly reasonably) responded negatively towards your private messages, you said:
And the only reason you had for calling those users ātoxicā is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy? They are not the toxic ones in this scenario.
I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word ābroā, or āsisā or basically anything else. All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them arenāt to my taste.
Pointing out where I draw boundaries isnāt disdaināitās clarity. Iāve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I wonāt do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (ācool story broā) is just harmless slang. Thatās not disdain, thatās naming behaviour for what it is.
Thatās not accurate. I didnāt call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. Thatās different from disagreement. Youāre collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and theyāre not.
This isnāt hyperbole. āBroā is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:
Thatās not me inventing baggage out of thin airāitās how the word is used in real contexts.
No. Iām not vilifying people for disagreement. Iām drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. Thatās the job of an admin: curating the space theyāre responsible for. The word ābroā as commonly used isnāt just āa commonplace word.ā Itās a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. Thatās why Iām flagging it.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. Thatās a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. Thereās nothing inherently wrong with thatāevery admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that Iām somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesnāt exist.
Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. Thatās how a community should function. Thatās how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. Iād last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so Iāll leave it at that.
Youāre describing elections, not the absence of hierarchy. That may make your server representative, but it doesnāt make it non-hierarchical. Someone still fits the role of admin, someone still has the keys to the machine, and someone can still pull the plug on the entire server at any moment.
Thatās not egalitarianismāthatās hierarchy with window dressing. Elections donāt erase the structure. They just decide who occupies it. And the structure itself carries the same asymmetries: technical control, federation policies, enforcement of rules, the ability to de-federate or delete outright.
Which is fineāserver administration is hierarchical by design. But it undercuts your attempt to paint my stance as authoritarian. Iām upfront about what the role entails: curating and enforcing standards in the space Iām responsible for. Youāre doing the same thing, just phrased differently.
And that flourish about āpointless debating pointsā is cowardice. Youāve been caught in your own contradictionāpreaching anarchism while holding the keys to a serverāand rather than face it, you try to wave it away. Thatās not an argument. Thatās an admission youāve got nothing left.
If I abused my position I would fully expect to be held accountable by one of our other admins. And Iāve also reversed mod decisions due to user feedback. But in order to do that youāve got to be open and responsive to feedback in the first place. But when you are the sole admin there is nobody to keep your ego in check. I still had that [left], I guess.
Thank you for describing it as a flourish, I liked that part.
So if you ever abuse your power, youāll be held accountableā¦ by the other admin.
The other guy sitting at the top of the hierarchy.
The same guy who named the whole server after himself.
Yeah, no hierarchies or egos here. Just pure, uncut anarchism.
You are making a ton of assumptions based total ignorance of how dbzer0 is operated and governed, even how many admins we have, or of the history of how it ended up under db0ās project domain. And itās not my job to educate you, especially because I can tell already that nothing I can say will disabuse you of your self-serving preconceptions.