I want to emphasize the “on those that deserve it” bit. That’s the part angry commenters will misinterpret or pretend to forget.

Anyway…

I have an account on kbin. It can be interesting to compare a thread when viewed here vs. being viewed there.

Usually, a thread viewed on kbin has more comments - but many of them are crude, stupid, and antagonistic. The same thread viewed on Beehaw has a much more readable comment section, because of thoughtful defederating.

Ideally, we wouldn’t have to defederate from anyone, but I don’t think we’re losing anything of value.

Somebody was ignorantly making fun of Beehaw recently. I responded that I only want civil, mature conversations instead of arguments with trolls. I like the idea of a well-moderated instance that has a general guideline of “be(e) nice”. I want mods to have the flexibility to do their jobs effectively.

Oh has sh.itjust.works started exibiting an extremist bias as a collective? Last time I was paying attention to them they were the sort of misguided centrist types whose instance was vulnerable to getting overrun with extremists. Sad to hear it happened, but not really all that surprised

It's not that these communities deserve it. It's that the moderation tools tools across instances isn't built out enough for it to be all done within lemmy

Update: The survey provides this answer.

What's wrong with sh.itjust.works? Good faith question, genuinely curious. I don't know much about the instance and in taking a quick peek, I see a lot of poking the hexbear but nothing else immediately sticks out.

Lemmygrad and hexbear I'm familiar with why they're problematic.

When I browse All on Beehaw I see a bunch of topics that I'm not even remotely interested in. I'm sure most of it is interesting to the members of those communities, but it's definitely not how I use Lemmy.

When I go to my "Subscribed" tab on lemmy.world, it's full of great content that isn't available on Beehaw.

If you want to prevent a scenario of “51% vs 49%” discussions, may I suggest publishing the results with rounded numbers, like “more than 20% think that [whatever]”.

i think you're unintentionally making a good case for why releasing results isn't useful here in any form: if we have to take active steps to distort or fudge how the data is presented to prevent sectarianism or people feeling like they're in a vast minority then it's just easier (and more productive) for everyone if the data is kept with us.

If an option states no change, and another states improvement, I see no reason why there is an option which implies both.

some people don't have the frame of reference, don't have the confidence, or simply have not paid sufficient attention to state one way or the other whether anything has changed--which is distinct from actually being able to say the site hasn't gotten less enjoyable. both options have been used fairly consistently to mean these, based off of the explanations box.