I was just reading this post https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1gmv76n/is_reddit_going_to_remain_the_primary_space_for/ and many barely see the fediverse as an alternative and they seem to have a negative bias towards it. Super ironic when it comes to the self-hosting community. Yes, some instances are problematic, yes, some devs might have had problematic views. But it doesn't really matter when it's federated and FOSS. I think it's clear-cut that the selfhosting community on Lemmy is a perfect alternative to reddit. Why is there such a negative bias?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah whatever, that's a feature. Reddit became worse once it became a safe place for conservatives and center-right liberals to gather.

Conservative, TheDonald, KiA, red pill, et. all made Reddit worse.

I don't want a second Reddit. Can better avoid eternal September issues if they self select to fuck off

But I guess that's what .world is for.

[–] _bcron_ 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

A lot of communities on Lemmy have a 'scene kid' subculture and they will just harass people right off the platform for not being true enough to the cause, despite being for the cause.

You got a bunch of raindrops. They want to become a hurricane. They simply need a warm breeze but shit blows sideways instead. The corners of Lemmy where movements could be happening are basically mosh pits

I'm not trying to argue with you or correct you or anything, just pointing out why this is bad, how it shouldn't be as it is, but it's on deaf ears to the people I'm lamenting about. And you're correct, a 2nd Reddit would suck, but Lemmy could be better if those people were being better.

If there's anything anyone mad about anything in the world should know, by know, don't attack people on the same team, welcome them in

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't quite understand your point. Do you maybe have some examples to understand better?

[–] _bcron_ 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I actually blocked most of those groups but one was some climate community on another instance. There was a post where someone asked what they could do personally to help prevent climate change, and it was full of political theory as a response.

Someone said they actively boycott Starbucks because the CEO flies a jet in order to commute to Seattle to California, and if the government won't do anything they felt like the least they can do is just commit to never giving them and their lobbyists a single penny ever again.

And they were downvoted to like -20 and had a dozen people attacking them over shifting the blame from the corporations to the working class by framing it in such a way that the working class should have any responsibility for the actions of the corporation. It was like watching a bunch of picketers calling someone a scab.

And I'm just reading it like "what the fuck guys, you're sitting around discussing political strategies that have so far done absolutely nothing, they're doing something, they have a point, the lobbyists make the laws, so defunding the lobbyists does make a lot of sense. He's flying in a jet to work because people give him money, helllLLLOOOooo."

Someone even went so far as to argue that a lot of people need to go to Starbucks because they might need a quiet space to study or hang out, so I jumped in pointing out that most municipalities have a library at the minimum, and people were fine before coffee shops were everywhere, and I got downvoted and jumped on by half a dozen people for not understanding the plight of others.

Homeless people need somewhere to go, so I'm an asshole for suggesting that other people could go to Starbucks less? Beats the hell out of me

In some climate forum, for no reason other than to win a stupid internet argument over the responsibility of emissions, everyone began defending the necessity of Starbucks of all things. Seriously. And at the same time, consumers shouldn't have to endure hardships for the climate because they should instead focus on affecting policy, in order for places like Starbucks to change, because they're fucking horrible. In my mind I was just like "well are corporations good or bad, or at the moment are they just convenient as both in order to use that person as a punching bag?" but noped right out.

It was basically a rat's nest of tangled up incongruent statements that all led back to 'fuck that person for saying they make a very small effort to do something towards a corporation as opposed to attempting to reshape politics'

So yeah, shit like that.

Maybe a simple "while I disagree with A due to B, it does have some merit because of C. But in my opinion I think D is more effective, and if you'd like to learn more about D, here are some resources! :)"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'd argue that at this point, sticking to the collective vs individual dichotomy of climate attribution and action potential is climate action delayist. When your argument relies you or your group intentionally doing absolutely nothing to combat climate change, you don't really have climate change in mind.

Leftism sometimes cares more about class than its very foundation, the environment, to understand why there is a problem with blame-shifting.

I've seen this in a similar fashion in relationship advice forums: Commenters not engaging with the issue or person, but knee-jerk reacting with advising instant breakup.