this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
187 points (97.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
540 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has been a thing since even before the web existed, with Usenet (the original federated forum) in the 1980s.

Would you really want admins controlling what you can and can't say online? What if the admins have different political or societal views than you, and delete you / your content just because they disagree with what you're saying? The world needs fewer power-hungry admins and mods, not more of them.

Also, the the thing with open source software is that you can't control how people use it - a key feature of open-source is that it's accessible to everyone.

IMO anyone should have the power to start their own Lemmy instance, but other instances should have the power to block you. I do agree that there's some instances that 99% of Lemmy would block. For cases like that, an optional global blocklist of awful instances, that any instance could opt-in to blocking, would be useful.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Personally I do not want that but there's a lot of people that want to shut down things they don't like.