Here are some reflections on my personal experience of federated social media.
A bit of background. In the 90-9-1 trichotomy, I am one of the 9%: an occasional active participant. As of 3 years ago I had been dabbling in social media since I was a teenager in the 90s, but never very deeply. Newsgroups and IRC; a bit of invisible blogging; various techie web forums; Twitter from 2008 (hardly any tweets); Facebook in the early 2010s (a post or two per week at the peak); then Reddit. As of 2023 I had been "on" Reddit for nearly a decade and not even written 100 comments. Then I decided on a whim to join Lemmy.
The good
Three years later I have written nearly 100 original posts and over 3000 comments! This is an order of magnitude more than I used social media in the previous 25 years. How to explain it?
A bunch of things. I liked the UX instantly, it's much better than Reddit. No ads, so no nagging feeling that you're bankrolling a corporation. A (slightly) higher level of conversation quality than Reddit.
Probably the single biggest explanation is just that it's quieter. On Reddit I always arrived too late to the party. It's hard to find the motivation to say something when a thread already has 800 comments. On Lemmy, I'd arrive 12 hours after the post and there were only 6 comments. If I take the time to compose my thoughts, somebody might actually see it! I get the paradox here (there are tons more eyes passively looking at Reddit), but the "quiet room" effect is real.
Highlights
Hands down the best community I've found here is (no surprise) a specialized one: !birding@lemmy.world. Lots of original content and genuine expertise, zero vitriol or toxicity. Perfect. In a similar vein, !pigeon@mander.xyz, where you can literally post pics of pigeons to an adoring audience.
I've also got some value out of !linux@lemmy.world and !privacy@programming.dev for one of those reasons: the ambient expertise. It's not really breaking news: Linux and FOSS and privacy are really the only subjects where the fediverse can go toe-to-toe with the corporates in terms of expertise. IMO that's already an achievement that should not be squandered!
Quite a few of my 96 posts are original content ("OG", ugh). A whole bunch are photos from my bike-touring escapades, which I posted somewhat arbitrarily to !bicycle_touring@lemmy.world , !bicycling@lemmy.world, and !solarpunktravel@slrpnk.net. I rationalize this as an alternative to blogging: instead of hosting your own invisible vanity website, you can write what you have to say in a place where you have less control but where people may actually read it. It's the logic of social media, basically, but minus the ads and opaque algos and shareholders. As expected, my holiday photos were not viral sensations, but they did attract some love and a few nice comments. Success!
The less good
My experience on Lemmy has taught me something that I knew in theory but (somehow) not quite in practice: Socializing via text on a screen is quite hard to pull off successfully. The lack of physical accountability, the inherent difficulty of text communication (avoiding ambiguity without the help of a face or body language), all this tends to make people into worse versions of themselves. Me included to some extent, I'm sure.
And then there's the echo-chamber problem. It turns out that when people have an option to avoid dealing with ideas they disagree with (even slightly), very many of them choose that option. IMO this is a major (perhaps fatal) problem with social media. The fediverse is not magically immune from it.
Lowlights
The first - and definitely worst - experience I've had was 2 years ago when I got banned from !europe@feddit.org for "racism and gaslighting" on the basis of, well, pretty much nothing except the moderator's paranoia. Shut out of the single community that had most drawn me to Lemmy, I tried !europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com and in short order had a similar experience. I am a European liberal who votes green, and a moderate on social questions, although admittedly I do enjoy debate. To be shut down so brutally for daring to question progressive doxas in the politest terms - for me this was quite a shocking confirmation of the intolerance of a certain section of the (mainly US) left.
On !degrowth@slrpnk.net I got a virtual slap on the wrist for posting an article offering constructive criticism of degrowth. I'm basically a degrowther myself but I believe it's important to stress-test one's ideas (cf. J S Mill). The moderators politely disagreed. Fair enough. I deleted my post and unsubscribed.
The problem on !china@sopuli.xyz, meanwhile was (is) slightly different. It's that the community is swamped by a single hyperactive member who posts relentlessly on exactly the same themes with the same POV, and - the echo chamber, again - responds badly to any pushback. I contacted the moderator in private and received a virtual shrug.
So I decided to ditch all politics and stick to photos and niche subjects. But even here it has not been plain sailing. A (slightly whiny) post I wrote a few months ago about the difficulty of installing Linux on cheap hardware (a pretty niche subject!) received an avalanche of mockery and insults that really took me aback. And then I really stirred up a hornets' nest quite recently in this very community when I proposed a feature which would hugely improve my experience of Lemmy without affecting anyone else. Can't link to that because it got (very belatedly) deleted, ostensibly because offtopic but in reality because the proposal was unpopular. In fact this was my last post on Lemmy to date. Probably not a coincidence.
Conclusions
For me personally, the jury's still out. I'm pretty ambivalent about social media in general. Since The Atlantic introduced a discussion space a few months ago, I admit that I've transferred some of my energy there. And yes, it's been a better experience. But the reason is no indictment of Lemmy: It's that The Atlantic has a paywall, which essentially means I'm talking only to privileged people like myself there. I enjoy Hacker News even more, but that's because it's super specialized (politics is mostly banned), and professionally moderated, and also (attention: wild POV!) because it's full of engineers and other spectrumy types who take a Spock-like approach to communication. The problems I've had on Lemmy are problems of all generalist social media, not specifically of the fediverse.
In my case what remains are the figures. Despite everything, I have contributed more, and more personally, on Lemmy than I ever did on the R-site or anywhere else. That has to count for something. Corporate social media is a manipulative money-driven spyware-fueled nightmare. The federated decentralized type is obviously, plainly, better. That's why it has to succeed.
Apparently you have yourself internalized islamophobia to such an extend that sweeping claims like that about a diverse group of people and their religion does not raise any red flags for you 🤦
Where does he make sweeping claims?
And also just because a claim is broad does not make it invalid. I could make the claim that human beings generally have two arms. And your type would vitriolically attack me for saying so, because how could I erase the existence of amputees and other exceptions to the rule.
But I would still continue to make that claim and argue that its a valid claim, partially because the broadness of the claim inherently signifies that it may be subject to exceptions. The purpose of making such claims is to develop an ability to understand the universe, which is a near infinitely complex system, in terms that we as human beings can understand. By developing the ability to understand what is going on in the universe, although our understanding may be slightly less than 100% accurate due to our tiny human brains, we unlock the ability to manipulate the universe to our advantage. This is how critical thinking and science brought us from hunter gatherer societies to where we are now. Because people have continued making claims, which have always been slightly less than 100% true, but close enough approximations to the truth that they are useful in making better decisions. Isaac Newton made claims about physics that have since been proven to be incorrect. Was he wrong to make those claims?
In this case, OP was making a claim that there are clear indications that certain traits and tendencies commonly exhibited by Islamic cultures are perhaps problematic or destructive in the context of Islamic migration to Europe. And your response is #NotAllMuslims. Which is of course willfully ignorant of the overarching point that is relevant in the context of the discussion. It doesn't need to apply to all Muslims in order to be a problem, and nobody aside from yourself and your ilk ever implied that it did.
Does people blowing themselves up and murdering hundreds of other random people in the name of religion not raise any red flags for you? And yet what OP said does? How can that be possible?
For someone who apparently thinks of themselves as rational and scientific, you exhibit a real lack of curiosity to differentiate between correlation and causation as well as a naive notion to take people's self-serving justifications at face value (if they fit to your preconceived notion of them). I don't think this discussion will make much sense to continue, if that is the level you are arguing at.
Lol, this isn't a discussion, you're just taking potshots at people without presenting any sort of argument or justification at all. You don't even bother to address my arguments or explain why you take the positions that you take and make the judgments that you make. But I already knew that you were that type of user going in, tbf. It's exactly the behavior that OP describes quite nicely in this very post
I'm mostly speaking for the benefit of others, because you're so wrapped up in your personal issues that it's impossible for me to get through to you via this platform.
This is more like asserting that humans are generally otherkin, proportionally. There are 1.5 billion Muslims.
You seem to be confused about how my two arms point relates to the rest of my comment. It is somewhat confusing tbf, especially if you have a reason to misinterpret it in a specific way.
The point about humans having two arms is a point about making broad claims in general, and the way that people such as PoVoq tend to willfully misinterpret them in order to attack others and gain a sense of moral superiority. Neither OP nor myself ever made the claim that Muslims in general are problematic or violent or whatever else. That would be totally islamophobic and also probably racist.
The claim is that there is a cultural element that creates an increased likelihood of religious radicalization resulting in indiscriminate violence, and that cultural element is particular to contemporary manifestations of Islamic culture. People make these types of claims every single day about a wide variety of groups, whether they be cops, soldiers, politicians, lawyers, bankers, Christians, Hindus, straight people, gay people, old people, young people, Republicans, Democrats, Americans, Europeans, Argentinians, Australians, Chinese, and so on and so forth. We describe what we think about groups of people based on the behavior that we witness and read about. And oftentimes (nearly always), what we think is wrong, or at least grossly oversimplified.
People say cops beat their wives, that they're power tripping sociopaths, that they're racist, and everything else in the book. And each of these claims is somewhat true, and also somewhat untrue, because there are a lot of cops on this planet, and each claim only applies to a certain percentage of them. To the extent that cops statistically commit domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population, one could argue that the claim is true. However, there might also be subgroups of cops among whom that claim is demonstrably untrue.
Similarly, with the claim about Islamic culture and the likelihood of violence, one could say that the claim is true to the extent that Muslims and/or Islamic immigrants commit violent/terrorist acts at a greater statistical rate than the general population. And I believe that the statistical data we have on that question does in fact support the claim, at least in certain contexts. It has nothing to do with making sweeping claims about all 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, it has to do with probability and risk, and I think deep down you probably already knew that.
…
Well, hey! That seems ideologically consistent and all, but the swing in angle hits me as creepy, so sorry.
I don't understand what you are trying to say, sorry.
The tone switch makes it obvious that the initial comment wasn’t genuine, which makes me feel like I’m being sold something.
It's hard for me to know whether I am dealing with people who are genuinely misunderstanding my arguments, or if they are simply trying to cast doubt on my conclusions by pretending to misunderstand how I arrived at them. Given the length of my comments and the relative brevity of yours, I am leaning towards you belonging to the latter group. If you were genuine, you would explain what you mean without being ambiguous and respond to at least a portion of the points I have already made, as a demonstration of good faith. Please make better use of your time.
In turn, I'm wondering if you're going to have this much energy yourself after (say) another six months here! Thanks for the intelligent pushback you're giving, I appreciate it.
That’s hard for me too, but if you start out by assuming both, you’re going to offend people.
I’m trying to do you a favor by telling you. I’m no longer trying to discuss the original thing at all, because I don’t feel like you’re going to engage well with the conversation. I get the sense that you’ll continue to try and cover all your bases with one comment, starting off seemingly genuine and then ending with passive aggression.
I will make better use of my time going forward, so I won’t be engaging further, but I hope you realize that I have been genuine with you.
I don't realize that at all. I've presented you with comprehensive discussion points and you've responded with snide passive aggressive snipes. You responded to my detailed argument with an intentional misunderstanding to imply that I was islamophobic, and then continued to passive aggressively fuck with me for kicks. Your talent for gaslighting is exceptional though, I begrudgingly commend you for that.