By giving people the opportunity to host their own instances and create their own communities with rules they like. This however does not mean that everything should be allowed everywhere. Actually this means that everywhere you go people make their own rules and if you dont like them, go somewhere else or create your own community.
This however is the main problem of social media in general. It creates circles of like-minded people where it is really easy to reject “other” thoughts and accept “our” ideas without much questioning. This is less a problem for people who are trained in critical thinking, but might be dangerous for more unstable people.
I’m just saying that a mix of different views is always good to some degree. Whether/how this should be done on Lemmy is a different thing.
Absolutely. If this rule was a permanent rule I don’t think so many people would defend it. However from experience (reddit for example) I think many people know that US politics has the ability to claim and overrun just about every space on the “western” internet. This is not something that really creates value for many people especially those that don’t live in the US and I think this ruling is trying to prevent that.
Ridiculous copy/paste reply. You’re not making a good case for people leaving corporate media for Lemmy. You’re encouraging them to stay where they are.
What’s wrong about it though? The freedom lies in the ability to create your own community that is not regulated by one company/organisation owning the platform. You can go to the place where you agree with the rules and you don’t have to live under the rules of someone you don’t like.
If some other country had a historic election, I would HOPE to see open dialog spread in places like this for people to express themselves. Why ban an internationally relevant discussion when people have the choice to be members of the community. How about - if you don’t like it, you can leave.
But there are places for the discussion to be made. Lemmy as a whole did not ban the elections discussion, just this one specific sub. In fact, you’ll see basically every single sub of Lemmy discussing it.
By giving people the opportunity to host their own instances and create their own communities with rules they like. This however does not mean that everything should be allowed everywhere. Actually this means that everywhere you go people make their own rules and if you dont like them, go somewhere else or create your own community.
This however is the main problem of social media in general. It creates circles of like-minded people where it is really easy to reject “other” thoughts and accept “our” ideas without much questioning. This is less a problem for people who are trained in critical thinking, but might be dangerous for more unstable people.
I’m just saying that a mix of different views is always good to some degree. Whether/how this should be done on Lemmy is a different thing.
Absolutely. If this rule was a permanent rule I don’t think so many people would defend it. However from experience (reddit for example) I think many people know that US politics has the ability to claim and overrun just about every space on the “western” internet. This is not something that really creates value for many people especially those that don’t live in the US and I think this ruling is trying to prevent that.
Ridiculous copy/paste reply. You’re not making a good case for people leaving corporate media for Lemmy. You’re encouraging them to stay where they are.
What’s wrong about it though? The freedom lies in the ability to create your own community that is not regulated by one company/organisation owning the platform. You can go to the place where you agree with the rules and you don’t have to live under the rules of someone you don’t like.
What’s wrong is fracturing. Lemmy is not so massive that it can sustain niche communities for every little topic.
I wouldn’t consider US politics a small topic, especially on Lemmy
It’s not a small topic, it’s a small community to set up all these tiny communities.
Community is what we called subs on the other site.
How are political communities tiny when they are 2 of the 6 most active communities on Lemmy?
To be honest, the issue is mostly about !politics@lemmy.world banning self posts (and thus people having to find alternatives such as !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world ) rather than the mods of !asklemmy@lemmy.world
Seriously? Political questions, political related questions, and international political related questions.
The one you listed is for essentially for posting articles.
They’re just butthurt that they’re not being allowed to spew their hot takes all over this community as a captive audience that isn’t interested.
Nobody was doing that here, though. Have you even seen this community? It’s super inactive to begin with.
Not every sub has to revolve around US elections all day/weeks/months long. That has nothing to do with corporate media.
If some other country had a historic election, I would HOPE to see open dialog spread in places like this for people to express themselves. Why ban an internationally relevant discussion when people have the choice to be members of the community. How about - if you don’t like it, you can leave.
But there are places for the discussion to be made. Lemmy as a whole did not ban the elections discussion, just this one specific sub. In fact, you’ll see basically every single sub of Lemmy discussing it.
This is a temporary rule for 1 single community.