So, it seems like PieFed is becoming a real alternative to lemmy.
What are the differences between these two? From a tech perspective, and also morality/ethics, if you want. Any differences in vision for these services?
Say whatever is on your mind. I want to know.
On which one should we put our weight?
Edit: I will leave this post here, which is a post by one of the devs of Lemmy that enumerates some of the things Lemmy 1.0 has. Lemmy 1.0 seems to be already in alpha stage and is already testable. The feature selection does look fantastic. Here is the post I am referring to: https://lemmy.ml/post/40744781
The number one problem with Lemmy (and reddit) is censorship. I hear that piefed makes censorship easier. This seems like a bad thing.
Piefed provides instance owners and admins with more tools to catch bad behaviour, that’s absolutely true.
i’d say it gives tools to moderate based on groupthink
Yes. Rather than creating better tools for censorship and groupthink we should create tools to prevent that.
What are you doing here? Are you trying to re-narrate what I just said? I hate that slimy stuff.
Just confirming. I don’t see that as a bad thing though. The instance tools are designed to make it easier to catch spammers, trolls and AI posts.
Cease the bullshit.
The tools for stopping bad behavior can be used to stop any behavior. And they invariably are and will be used to censor any voice those in power dislike, as we all know.
That’s a fact. There is no good dictatorship.
Not really. Do you know what the tools are specifically? They’re just isolating the behaviour of new users for instance admins to catch tendencies often presented by spammers, trolls, bots and AI posters. There’s nothing baked in that can specifically target a specific group.
There already are various lemmy instances known for partisanship moderation without any specific tools.
someone who only speaks truth to power or just opposes the status quo will almost invariably be downvoted. using those downvotes to identify trolls is just bad practice.
Oh stop greasily prevaricating already.
Legit question: Do you oppose any and all moderation, and quality of life tools to that end for moderators and/or instance admins?
Bullshit
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
Censorship is a tool of the state to squelch free expression and prevent uprising.
Moderation is a tool of community to keep dangerous people from harming its members.
Lemmy has moderation, not censorship. And the fact that you’re being moderated is a big old red flag. To wit: I’ve never seen this complaint from anyone outside the right-wing.
Your argument is merely semantic. And then you accuse me.
It’s slimy junk like this.
It’s not semantic in the slightest. It’s a crucial difference. One is a community protecting its members, the other is an oligarchy protecting their power. The fascists have tried to conflate the two in order to further their agenda, and you fell for it.
So you’re unfamiliar with !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works then? Never seen someone banned for having the gall to speak against Stalin or the CCP, or any other wrongthink according to the Marxist-leninists that run .ml, grad, and bear? You must be new here, or agree with that as “moderation not censorship” because you are a tankie too, or have decided to classify Marxist-Leninist tankies as right wing because “left only when good,” or think “right wing is when call out leftists on their bullshit,” I’m just curious which applies.
I just reread my comment, and you know what, I didn’t see a single assertion that moderation couldn’t be weaponized or misused; only that it wasn’t censorship when it was deployed by someone other than the state. But the fact that you immediately reacted with such rage at the implication is maybe an indication that you’ve been moderated for reasons other than just your viewpoint.
Let me be more clear: misusing moderation isn’t censorship, unless you’re doing so at the behest of a government. It’s just misusing moderation.
Tbf, some of them may be doing it at the behest of some government, it just might not be yours.
But really this is a semantic issue when the real outcome is the same: suppression of dissent. You can pretend you just “didn’t mention” abuse of moderation all you want but this being lemmy, it would have been a good idea when it’s such a prevalent problem, so I’m inclined to believe that rather than simply neglecting to mention it, like many others here you possibly support or endorse it. You also employ the often used tactic of calling everyone who considers this “abuse of moderation” a form of censorship “right wing” which just so happens to be on page two of the tankie handbook, so I’m even further inclined to believe that you’re just aligned with them.
It’s very much not.
Is that more common? Or is abuse disguised as dissent more common?
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Like I said in my previous comment, seems like you’ve been moderated for reasons other than your viewpoint.
Believe what you like. I support communities keeping their members safe.
I’m not interested in your ridiculous ideological turf wars. All I’m interested in is people staying safe.
So many times in the small town I grew up in I heard the argument that says, “we have to have guns so that if there’s a fascist government we can rise up against it! The casualties that come from that are worth it if we can protect our people against the excesses of a tyrannical regime!” And then millions of people die from that right, and then an actual fascist government really does arise, and oops, the gun owners side with the tyrannical regime. I always knew it was nonsense, but seeing the actual results is pretty notable.
In the face of that, “we have to have completely unmoderated spaces so that if a fascist government tries A Censorship we can speak out against it!” sounds pretty familiar. “The casualties that come from that are worth it if we can protect our people against the excesses of a tyrannical regime!” I’ve heard that line before.
EDIT TO ADD:
To be fair, this is a reasonable point to make. I don’t think it’s enough to reconsider the value of moderation, but it is a fair point and worth keeping in mind.
By “abuse disguised as dissent” do you mean it’s abuse to refute tankie propaganda and the bans for doing it (the tankies suppressing it) are then justified? 'Cause…
Like I said in a previous comment, it seems you’re unfamiliar with the entirety of .ml, lemmygrad, and hexbear. Or you support their moderation tactics, and “anyone who dared speak against them must be a right wing troll who deserved it” which coincidentally is what they say any time they ban someone for not praising the CCP or the russians in Ukraine, coincidence? I think not, too many of them around here for that.
No.
No. That’s what I mean by misuse of moderation. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still exist, it means that people shouldn’t be on those instances.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t exist, I’m saying your premise of “if you’ve been
censored(moderated if you insist on distinction idgaf) on lemmy you’re clearly right wing and probably deserved it” is verifiably false.And that you’re probably one of them, if you parrot the same lines they do, of course. If you’re not maybe reflect on why you parrot their lines, perhaps you’ve been duped into thinking anyone who criticizes moderation on lemmy is a right wing troll just because they use a word that is basically synonymous when abused except “state.”
Btw note definition 1b. Would you say a concentrated team of admins and moderators with an agenda silencing those who oppose it fits that definition? I would.
Ever been in truly uncensored online spaces? I have. Know what you very very quickly get lots of? Nazis and child porn. This is not good
I know. Therefore censorship is a tool for both good and bad.