The admin of sh.itjust.works has been approached but as of yet has failed to reply to concerned Lemmy users. I’m glad Beehaw admins look out for us by cutting off instances that host communities like this.
The admin of sh.itjust.works has been approached but as of yet has failed to reply to concerned Lemmy users. I’m glad Beehaw admins look out for us by cutting off instances that host communities like this.
The_Donald on that instance??? Ehhhh… they previously said of being apolitical or “free speech absolutists”, and this is quite telling.
Dios mio, I have an account over there. When the owner/admin said they wanted to “let the community decide” the future direction of the site I could just feel where it was going … there were already some people doing the right wing “debate” hoakey coakey
this is a big reason, incidentally, we don’t let you guys decide everything (and why we probably won’t for a long time, if ever). we’d like to eventually be able to give you more input as a community member to directly influence things instead of indirectly giving us ideas, but even with a fairly vetted group like this which mostly gets the ethos we’re going for it’s very difficult to prevent a democratic community from eventually spiraling into its worse impulses. i can’t imagine trying this same routine with a non-vetted, mostly open community.
“A person is smart, people are dumb panicky animals and you know it!”
I think it’s a good way to go about things, Rome wasn’t built in a day and a community isn’t made with quotes and idioms (unlike my replies)
The theory I have, and it’s something I want to test with tucson.social, is that a democratic community will ONLY work with local stakeholders. Internet randos will always ruin the democratic makeup of a community since they can be from anywhere and have conflicting allegiances. However, by ensuring that an online community is a mirror of the local community, there is a deeper respect for Democratic norms because the participants are actually a part of the community they affect. At least, that’s my theory anyways. There will certainly be other problems in this model, but I believe it may be the only real way that an online community can self govern without falling prey to internet extremism.
Heck, all the talk I see about TOR concerns me. Like, what are you wanting to do on tucson.social that requires TOR? I get it for online-only communities that are meant for a global audience, but for something hyper local and meant for people who are (arguably) not oppressed by government restrictions on free speech, I just don’t see the point.
Anyways I shall see if this even works. Perhaps a year later I’ll be writing a post-mortem on the failure of tucson.social at the hands of extreme members of the community - or maybe I’ll make an exuberant post about it’s success in self-moderating/self-administration?
I think it’s a bit silly to allow “democratic voting” on an open signup instance when there’s this many bots hanging around with access to chatgpt.
The person running it is gross, but I feel like it’s important to keep perspective that it does seem to almost entirely be just that one person, and that everything they’re posting is downvoted to hell and back. (As opposed to a coordinated attempt by that “community” to migrate to that instance.)