this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
862 points (92.1% liked)
Open Source
31114 readers
1 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I will tell you why this is not true.
Any platform that becomes successful enough to grow and cater to a larger audience eventually gets sold to large corpos. This is inevitable, because the owner usually doesn't have the principles to say "no" to $100m+. This is a bad thing, why? Because you joined the platform due to its reliability and its culture. These things are no longer guaranteed to stay when the owner is replaced. So the previous owner essentially did a bait-and-switch by selling you (the user-base) to a corporation.
On one hand this leads to a more stable platform that can withstand legal trouble and has a steady inflow of money to maintain service. On the other hand, you get cencorship, woke ESG-score-friendly ideology and UX anti-patterns (like when Reddit constantly pushes their app to track you and show you ads). The ending of such a platform is hatred from most common people and aggressive monetization by the owners to compensate for a lower rate of growth. These owners, usually shareholders of publicly traded companies, do not care about maintaining quality as much as they care about generating wealth. This means that they will resort to several anti-user tactics to keep growing their wealth, like for example milking the platform dry with ads & micro-transactions.
Lemmy.world and other large instances are just like Condé Nast Reddit. Same censorship, same garbage. If you think that Lemmy is more free, then let me remind you that Reddit pre-2014 was more free than Lemmy.world. Yes, once upon a time Reddit was much more free and open than the so called "Lemmyverse". Why I say this is because of Lemmy's rules and policies. As an anecdote, I literally got banned from a community for saying that there are only two sexes (no foul language, nothing). For me, who was a Redditor during the pre-2014 era, this was unheard of. Lemmy is less like Old Reddit, and more like Raddle.me (Communist Old Reddit-clone). Lemmy is the LGBT/woke Old Reddit clone. It's not as fringe as Raddle.me, but it is still fringe, and it will therefore not be able to have the same reach as Old Reddit once had. The fact that Reddit is woke now is a bait-and-switch, as I explained earlier. Reddit would have never been successful had it been woke from Day 1. I predict that Lemmy will never grow as large as Reddit because of this reason.
To mods: Leave this post be. If not, you can have your echo-chamber, and I'm fucking out of here.
I said "there are only two sexes". I got my post removed, and got banned.
In general, you should have enough tolerance to host discussions and debates for people you disagree with. Especially when you claim to be a viable Reddit alternative. You can't ask the wider population to join your platform when you are this extreme and on the fringe. As I said, Lemmy is in the same camp as Raddle.me, not Old Reddit.
There is a benefit to not start muddying the waters when it comes to sexes.
The benefit is the conceptualization of reality, which allows us to put things that are similar into the same box (let’s call it X). Then we can say things that are in X tend to have a, b, c, … features. We can then talk more about the objects in X in a social or academic setting, and draw logical conclusions based on their features and other premises. This helps us decide which treatments to give, how to behave, how to build homes, which products to develop, which services to give and much more.
When you refuse to acknowledge that the objects in the box can be similarly referred to, and instead enforce a system where object 1 belongs in box “A”, and 2 in “B”, and 3 in “C”, etc. you challenge people’s ability to conceptualize reality efficiently. This makes medicine harder, it makes socialization harder, and other things we do as human beings that differ based on sex much harder.
It’s simply not realistic to enforce this on wider society because
I therefore believe that the whole idea of non-binary is pushed primarily as a grift by the medical industry to sell “treatments” for gender dysphoria, and as a type of fetish. It’s not something most people are interested in validating, because it’s wrong, harmful and not based on reality.
It depends on the subreddit. Several subreddits that you surely would not agree with did just fine for years.
I will repeat myself... I said "there are only two sexes". I got my post removed, and got banned.
That's a lot of eloquent words to describe how you have to put people into strictly defined categories, otherwise you get confused and angry.
You put things into categories all the time, we all do. Take plates for example. If someone told you that you are not allowed to call two plates with different colors "plates", then you would likely have considered it a bit wired. Wouldn't you?
Also, tone down the arrogance.