I saw that a post was made in !main@sh.itjust.works about defederation about a month ago, an admin commented to make a post here to discuss defederation, but the post was never made.
https://maga.place/ is very obviously a small community with no real substance to it, but I saw an antivax post to !science_memes@mander.xyz and was surprised it still exists.
Anyways I don’t really have a lot to say but uh, I recently hit a full year on this great instance 😊 (old account @TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works)
As long as they keep their opinions in whatever community they choose and don’t force it down anyone’s throat, I’m fine with it existing. I’d rather have ugly opinions openly debated instead of festering in the background where others get sucked in and we get a pathway to extremism. It’s pretty easy to just block the odd community that pops up all you never see it again.
Debate them or ignore them, but completely blocking them just kneecaps this burgeoning platform. Nobody is going to join if the standard is “only leftists that meet this litmus test”.
Obviously you can vote however you choose, I personally prefer to lean on the side of allowing content vs blocking it outright, at least until they refuse to obey our rules when in our communities.
You’re making a valid point, on the other hand
What if the standard was not “only leftists” but “everyone but the far-right”? They are allowed on most (?) major platforms these days, and it hasn’t helped them become better places.
The same is true. Echo chambers are bad, and it you want evidence of that on the left, look no further than Lemmy.ml.
Quite often people with extreme views violate the rules, so they get banned. The rest tend to improve my experience overall. I’ve had good and bad discussions with people on all extremes of the political spectrum on Reddit, and that’s because there were communities for everyone. I’d avoid the toxic communities like the_donald, but I very much enjoyed many of the others. My favorite subreddits were the neutral* subreddits (esp. neutral news), which contrary to the name didn’t enforce neutrality, but required sources for every claim, and people from all over the political spectrum would provide fantastic evidence for their claims.
I would avoid all of the above communities be ajse I don’t think segregating myself by gender and biological sex fosters good discussion, nor do I crave acceptance. But others obviously disagree, and I think that’s fine. It shouldn’t be on the platform to decide how people self-organize, it should only step in if people are breaking the rules.