I've been trying Lemmy for a little while and wasn't sure how to feel about it.
Today, I wanted to start blocking the most high-censorship instances until I could find a fully zero-censorship instance and simply block all the ones with censorship. Filter bots, not people.
When I looked into it further, I found out there are no zero-censorship instances, because Lemmy relies on a broken "federation" system where each instance is supposed to be able to fetch posts from other instances, but it's never been finished to reach a fully working state. Lemmy's official docs say you can't even do federation over Tor at all. This means it uses DNS, so it won't actually allow Lemmy instances to fetch posts from each other freely, it just gets blocked instantly and easily, every time the authorities feel like blocking anything.
So you can only ever have the "average joe lemmy" and "average joe reddit" with everything approved by the authorities, and then "tor copies of lemmy" and "tor copies of reddit" where you have free speech but you can only reach other nerds.
People seem to think Lemmy is different because this weird censorship fetish is extremely popular and most of you are happy to see bans happen to certain people, not just bots, so a small Lemmy that censors certain people feels fundamentally different from a big reddit that censors more people. But it's the exact same thing, it's reddit.
When reddit was smaller, you could say basically anything you wanted there, they just wouldn't let it reach the main audience. Then it got too big, and any tiny part of the audience you could reach would be too big, so they won't let you talk at all.
Lemmy is now the small part of reddit where you can say whatever you want, separated from the main audience, until too much growth happens and you have to move again.
It's not actually a solution to reddit. It's not designed to be different, it's designed to match the past today and then match reddit's present tomorrow, while being part of a system that's about the same in past, present, and future.
Last year, this year, and next year, you're posting somewhere it won't be seen by many people, and the system that charges people for ambulance rides is getting another year of ambulance ride revenue, facing no organized resistance. There's no difference here.
Lemmy urgently needs federation between onion service instances and DNS addresses in order to actually do what most users seem to wish it would do: allow discussion outside what the corporate authorities allow, while outgrowing reddit & helping undo the damage social media has done to human communication.
"allow discussion outside what the corporate authorities allow" apparently meaning "Allow CSAM"
So, until today, you thought the corporate authorities allowed CSAM on reddit?
Or are you just upset that I say what I mean, and mean what I say?
No, I was pointing out that the "discussion" outside of what the "corporate authorities allow" is according to you, actually just CSAM. I don't think anyone here wants to "allow" in that.
No, you're just upset I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
I never said CSAM is the only content censored by the authorities.
Didn't ask what you think everyone else thinks.
Also, can I add that Reddit - per its own standards, hasn't failed. It's a massive website with a lot of traffic.
We think it's failing, and poisoning the atmosphere - but that doesn't mean it hasn't been a big success. A lot of people on the Fediverse do not aspire to grow to be the size of Reddit, and think thats both unrealistic and undesirable.
Didn't ask. Why waste time with it?
Again, didn't ask. Why waste time typing this?
Again, didn't ask. Why waste the time?
Again, didn't ask. Got a reason for typing this, other than to waste my time?
Your original post and comments seem to suggest the end-goal of the Fediverse is to get as big as Reddit, and that it failed due to being overly censorious. It didn't, and it is not the overall goal of the Fediverse.
Incorrect. You're aware that's not what I was suggesting, you're just making shit up and pretending it's how it "seems" because you're very dishonest.
Didn't ask.
No, I'm not. Your original post:
"Lemmy urgently needs federation between onion service instances and DNS addresses in order to actually do what most users seem to wish it would do: allow discussion outside what the corporate authorities allow, while outgrowing reddit & helping undo the damage social media has done to human communication."
Doesn't matter. That you misidentify the purpose of the Fediverse, and why people are here is precisely why your ideas aren't interesting and even offputting to many people.
Yep, you are. You're just dishonest.
I'm guessing you copied and pasted that. Good job? Not reading it to check.
Didn't ask if it mattered to you.
Incorrect. I don't do that, so it can't be the reason. And the reason is because a lot of users here are mentally ill.
Yes, it's your words where you suggested the goal of the Fediverse was to outgrow reddit.
You've repeatedly shown you don't understand the basics of the purpose of the fediverse to most users here.
Incorrect. I don't have any words where I suggested the goal of the Fediverse was to outgrow reddit.
It's also probably not anything like that. Breaking it down into components, I try to remember not to say brand names like "Fediverse" have "goals" like people, and even though I mess that up sometimes, I also don't know if the people who run the "Fediverse brand name" want to outgrow reddit, so I don't think I'd say that.
Incorrect. I haven't discussed it enough to do that. I barely know what the "fediverse" is at all. It's only been mentioned in this thread a few times, where I have been able to understand enough to give logical replies.
The Fediverse just is what it's shorthand referred to now because it's not just Lemmy that people use. I'm not o na Lemmy instance.
Precisely. So I don't know you're taking such a strong position on what the future ought be when you're broadly unfamiliar with vast amounts of it.
I absolutely did not ask.
What the fuck? Everyone(?) is broadly unfamiliar with vast amounts of the future, everyone should still have a strong position on what the future ought to be.
So what? You made a comment about the Fediverse term, and I replied.
I mean unfamiliar WITH THE FEDIVERSE. Not the future. Mr. "I'm so good at English".
So it's yet another random subject-change that I've been, for hours, making it clear you should stop.
I didn't ask if I did.
I didn't ask if you replied.
I didn't ask what you meant, the "what the fuck" was an expression of how bewildered I was at your mental illness.
Again, I didn't ask.
You seem to have me confused with someone who asked what you meant. I don't see anyone who asked what you meant. I just see me, who understood what you meant, and made fun of you for how bad you are at typing, instead of addressing the secret meaning of your words.
Did I say you did?
Did I say you did?
Did I say you did?
Did I say you did?
Should I only respond to direct questions, rather than comments and claims you make?
They're such a crybaby is it worth even engaging any further?
Okay, what other content are people on the Fediverse unable to talk about and share?
What do you mean? People on the Fediverse are able to talk about and share CSAM, so how would stuff they can't be "other content" in the way you used the words in that sentence?
Do you mean "share widely," in which case, you know the answer is everything and it's weird that you'd ask yet another question you know the answer to?
No, people are not able to share CSAM on the Fediverse. Doing so gets your account banned.
What specific topics can you not say on the Fediverse, or indeed any website outside of TOR without the threat of being arrested?
What do you think "banned" means? It's not "killed in the past with time travel" or whatever you're implying.
According to Trevor Moore, it's illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America"
I didn't say it was. But you still get banned, and the posts deleted.
So you think that's something that is missing here for the final piece of the puzzle? People feel the need, and want, to discuss inciting violence against politicians, public figures and whoever else?
But I correctly pointed out that it's not whatever you implied.
Didn't ask, don't care. Why waste time typing that?
What do you mean?
Are you asking? You don't know?
What is it you thought I meant when I said "banned" exactly?
The point was that you can't, per the rules, share CSAM on here. You seemed to deny that.
You seem to think that the fact that you can't incite violence on the fediverse is somehow harmful and corrosive to public discourse.
You keep asking me what I think you mean, as if I'm sitting here trying to guess what you mean.
I don't know. I don't even care about the answer anymore. I've repeatedly told you I will mainly respond to what your words mean instead of trying to guess your secret meanings.
That's not a point, and you seem to be implying I'm incorrectly denying what rules are here instead of correctly rejecting misuse of English (e.g. saying "can't" when meaning "shouldn't")
This seems like another reply where you're trying to bait me to give you some kind of justification for banning me or removing my comments.
Banned as in your account shut down and being made inaccessible by the administrators/owner. Sometimes IP banned.
This is such an utterly frivolous correction.
You wouldn't get banned for justifying why people should get to incite violence towards others. You might lose reputation though.
I don't even remember asking. If I did, I shouldn't have implied I cared what you had to say anymore by this deep into the thread.
That sounds like me. I'm known for refusing to refuse to elaborate.
Didn't ask for your advice on what will or won't get me banned.
Trading the sycophancy of war criminals and their supporters for the respect of humanity's best, isn't what I call "losing reputation."
You did ask what I meant some time back by banning.
You seemed to think I was somehow baiting you into incriminating yourself over your opinions on incitement to violence. I pointed out that this wouldn't get you banned.
Presumably you would want to allow the incitement of violence for anyone, not just war criminals.
My bad if it came off like I actually cared what you had to say anymore.
Yeah, you have kept doing that.
Baselessly, as if I would be gullible enough to take your word for it.
If you have a design that enables the incitement of violence against war criminals and no one else, maybe someone is all ears. I don't really care, I'm still kinda tired of you wasting my time with relatively pointless inbox notifications.
How would it get you banned? You might get banned for actually inciting violence, but not explaining your position on the legality of it.
You don't have to reply to me, you know. I'm not forcing you to do so. I'm not making you "waste your time" by replying. You choose to do so.