I suppose this may make sense in the case of something like Mastodon. But something as versatile and customizable as lemmy, which allows for the existence of separate topic-based communities, makes topic-based instances of lemmy not necessary.

Instead of making a new instance for a certain topic, it is usually a much better approach to just create a new community on my current lemmy instance. At least from my perspective as a user.

I find the only exception to this is censorship and moderation. If I, for any reason am unhappy with an instance’s moderation and censorship, then that is the only potential reason I can see to change and make my own.

What does everyone else think of this?

  • Jake Farm
    link
    fedilink
    18 months ago

    Implimenting a voting system to kick out poor quality moderaters would be nice.

    • comfy
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I do think it’s important for a site to be willing and able to kick moderators who are abusive, especially in a major community. But as for a formal system for reclaiming a community, it would be up to in individual instance’s staff.

      There are struggles with a voting system in a pseudonymous environment like this site: how do you enforce identity? How can you detect if 5 accounts are actually just me and my sockpuppets? And how can you do that without making life horrible for people who want to stay private with tools like proxies and anti-trackers? It’s possible to mitigate some of these problems but it’s not an easy task once a community grows, and can involve compromise.

      In a smaller site like this, raising complaints to the instance staff or on a /c/meta like community is a good first step and can be very effective if the case is strong.

    • @nutomicA
      link
      fedilink
      48 months ago

      In that case you can contact instance admins to remove the mod.

    • Onihikage
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      As a newbie, having some way for a community to democratically replace a moderator definitely sounds like it would be an improvement over most (all?) non-federated social media services, but I think there needs to be some kind of election framework for community leadership positions in general, and that would be how bad moderators get replaced. At the very least, I hope any voting would use the STAR method.

        • Onihikage
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          Sorry for the late reply. STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. The idea is every option is scored by voters from 0-5 stars, and the scores are added up from each voter to get the top two scoring options. Then those two options are ranked according to which was preferred (scored higher than the other) by the greatest number of voters. There’s a website about it, along with entries on Wikipedia and Ballotpedia.