This is extremely well written. Anyone that supports and wants to see this platform thrive should share this in response to the people spreading nonsense with the goal of seeing it fail and upholding the corporate status quo.

Lmao what a stupid argument. If you want money paywall your content and see how many people really want to see it. You do not have the right to fill anyone's head with manipulative garbage propaganda just because you made a video about how much you love the second reich and want it to retvrn or wrote some shitty blog post.

People that call themselves CONTENT creators are the people churning out pure garbage for the bazinga-brained sake of contentcontentcontent and the quality of actually worthwhile shit would skyrocket if they would all just collectively quit because what would be leftover are the people who actually care and aren't in it for some ad views.

Artists, critics, musicians, designers, etc etc? They don't call themselves content creators like the bazinga-brained influencers in it purely to chase metrics. Tell the bazingas to fuck off.

One of your issues is probably sorting by Active instead of sorting by Hot. A major difference in the experience on Lemmy is the "Active" sort method being the default.

Good.

OH BOY VOAT

Yeah. Free speech absolutism does not attract a good crowd, and once you attract that crowd you will not attract any other crowd because the content output they produce is repellant to any normal person.

So you would prefer massive dictators with a profit motive instead? Because that's the alternative you are advocating for.

The entire point of federation as a tool of decentralisation is to address the issue of Spez, Musk, Zuckerberg and so on. Massive corporate dictators of the internet.

The solution is to split up the massive dictators into lots and lots of smaller ones, who can federate with who they want to in order to make a bigger space, and ultimately provide you with the choice of which approach you like better. It ultimatley allows all of these spaces to shut out corporate advertising as well because if McDonalds ever makes a fucking instance everyone will defederate that shit to get away from the advertising immediately.

If you like the mega dictators better. Reddit is over there. I assume you do not, because that's why you left it.

Wtf? Why are people upvoting this garbage?

Google, Facebook, Tiktok, Youtube, there are TONNES of "platforms" that literally ban porn content from being uploaded to them. What are you talking about? Not viable? The biggest fucking social media site on the internet does not allow porn, the biggest video site on the internet does not allow porn.

Redditors have seriously broken brains and only know how to repeat what they've read other broken redditors repeat and upvote ad-infinitum without every actually thinking for 5 seconds about how ridiculous what they're saying is.

nuance

I'm going to take this point in good faith, even though I disagree with it. The people that scream "tankie" often use the word in exactly the same meaningless way that the people who scream "woke" do, then they claim it has a specific meaning but clearly apply it very very broadly to basically anyone who is a marxist and waves a red flag.

But, since you suggest you're willing to get into nuance. I'm going to throw reel off a few groups, people and countries. Would you mind telling me which ones you consider tankie and evil, vs which ones you consider good?

The Black Panthers

Fred Hampton

Huey Newton

Albert Einstein

Nelson Mandela

Che Guevara

Fidel Castro

Thomas Sankara

Chavez

Cuba

Venezuela

Bolivia

Vietnam

Laos

Nepal

Nicaragua

Angola

Kerala district of India (governed by the Communist Party of India)

It's ok to not know one way or another too btw, I'm just interested in a "tankie" "not tankie" "never heard of them" response on each of them.

@[email protected] this is exactly why tone policing is bullshit moderation policy.

Your modteam is allowing this transphobic screed to exist, and has in fact unbanned the user that posted it despite the very very obvious fact that they are a transphobe doing concern-trolling and "just asking questions" style veiled bigotry, while simultaneously banning everyone that has reacted to their behaviour by rightfully calling them the names they deserve to be called.

This policymaking is what results in people in the left calling someone a terf or a fascist getting banned while the fascists and terfs roam free. The site will be taken over by this and the left will slowly be banned and pushed out by it. The fact that the team can't seem to get into their heads that trans people might get a little fucking heated when bigots are allowed to exist and clearly defended by some of the incompetent members the modteam is another part of the problem.

You should get some trans people on your team to keep the rest of the idiots on it making these shit decisions in check. This nerd should absolutely be rebanned and every other person that copped a ban over this shit should be unbanned.

Everything you have seen happen recently is in service to the upcoming IPO.

Expect a similarly sized drama explosion when they take huge action against the porn on the site.

As someone that mods on multiple 1m+ subreddits, this is not viable across hundreds of subreddits with tens of active mods per subreddit.

And it's not viable with the userbases either, many of them would go full scorched earth rebellion against the site. Reddit is trying to calm things rather than turn it into a massive thing.

If large quantities of users decide to wreck the site with spam posts there is very little that admins can do. Committed users hell bent on trashing reddit can do so in greater numbers than can be responded to. This occurred when /r/FatPeopleHate got banned (a sub that thoroughly deserved it but hey ho) when a lot of the site went into a rebellion against Ellen Pao. They remember this, and do not want to repeat it.

I do not see how any political leader making a statement of support for protesters over this heinous act is "opportunistic". It's exceptionally important to have their voices sounding off to maintain momentum and public support.

Say what you will about him not being hard-left enough, I'll give you that. But I don't think it's the time or place for it.

Who the fuck downvotes this?

Anyone downvoting this simply because you hate China ultimately do not want peace in Palestine. This is a solid, really good thing. Having the world's largest economic and manufacturing superpower directly involved in and aiming to achieve peace there is a GOOD thing. Stop being such utter losers about it. Start caring about human beings instead of engaging in campism.

Alright I'll bite.

As you move down the wealth ladder you eventually reach a point at which there is a culture change. There are significant differences in the culture of the average middle-income anglo with guilt about their privilege compared to the people who are really, genuinely struggling. Once you cross a certain threshold, I'll call it the poverty threshold for the sake of this reply but it's not really a strict line but more of a broadly intersecting spectrum where there are many people who can blend into both groups, you reach a behavioural change point. This behavioural change, both in speech and in attitudes, is generally driven by those of us below a certain income level genuinely not giving a single fuck about how someone speaks but rather what they are saying.

Take for example my home of Liverpool. If I go down the council flats I'll find myself hundreds of people who will speak in ways that the middle-income liberals of america would find abhorrent. They will cuss you for a minor thing that makes it seem like you just killed their dog. This is normalised culture for them, and among their peers it is perfectly fine behaviour - but to the sheltered middle income person who sees it as an overreaction? It's shocking, and they don't like it.

This trend occurs towards the lower income groups because frankly their is less and less incentive to ruin relationships with people over social policing. Far more is put up with and accepted because everyone's got it rough and nobody's interested in making someone's life harder by getting overly emotional about a few swearsies.

I fit into one of the blending people, seamlessly transitioning between the two and speaking both ways. I grew up in squats, but I also got a very fortunate break that led to me getting an education in what many would regard as the ruling class side of our education system, which is split between schools for the workers vs schools for the bourgeoisie.

Anyway. The point is that the tone policing has the effect of shutting out these people from participation. The reason you don't see the majority of these people in participation online isn't because they don't have access, it's because they've had the experience of getting banned everywhere for not speaking like a cultured middle income liberal, and they've frankly got bigger priorities in their lives than learning how to speak like the people they fucking despise.

It is classism because it explicitly shuts out this class of people from participation. Almost everywhere online the tone policing functions as a tool of class discrimination that bends internet culture towards privileged middle-income groups over the poor. It's not explicitly intended to do this, but it is the outcome of it. Much like for example having a "no hoodies" rule in a shop doesn't function to keep out middle-income people but keeps out the "chavs", if you'll forgive my use of a classist slur for effect.

You wanna get aggressive and go at it? Go ahead. Do it. How something is expressed is not important compared to what is actually being said. The issue with this form of classism is that a section of society goes completely unrepresented online because of it, people whose politics almost always align with my own socialist views once they're well educated in what their interests are.

@[email protected] @[email protected] this is a good idea for the users over there to share

The shouting came before the self identifying.

Saying tankie is tongue-in-cheek, or simply to upset the people that scream it constantly. I'm a marxist-leninist, formerly an anarchist. I would still be an anarchist if climate change weren't putting a time limit on the need to get something done too. I decided that I could not sit by knowing hundreds of millions of people were going to die in 30 years (closer now tbh but it was a few years ago that I moved to a leninist toolkit now) while also knowing that anarchism was not equipped to generate the needed revolutions required to save any of those lives. Marxism-leninism and dem-cent parties on the other hand have a proven track record of creating revolution within that kind of timeframe.

I will probably return to anarchism when such timelimits are not in effect. It's just not morally justifiable for me to sit around using a toolkit that's not equipped for the time limit when we know what we know.

IBS too!

Only wish we knew what the definition of "active" being used was more clearly.

but specifically I see it first hand in liberal groups I’m in and I realize that it can be seductive to talk about conservativism (for example) as simply evil. Hell, I often see fellow liberals tearing apart their own if someone doesn’t live up to a 100% purity standard they’ve created.

Liberal groups are squeezed because the middle is disappearing under the steadily tightening contradictions. You only have to walk the streets for a day or two to see the results of liberalism, certainly it has created great productivity but the production is not going to the majority of people. When the soviet union fell the liberal ruling class (which I include conservatives in, they are two halves of liberalism, the political ideology of capitalism) went into overdrive taking away every single benefit given to the people in pursuit of competition with a real threat that sought to improve people's standard of living worldwide.

As such, liberals are radicalising in much the same way that many pushed to the left (communists/anarchists under the umbrella of socialism) are and as much as many pushed to the fascist right are. It was the liberals in the SDP that killed Rosa Luxembourg to prevent the would-have-been sparticist German revolution which then probably led to the nazis taking power, liberals aren't incapable of being "extremist" in their own sense. As they get threatened more and more between the rising far left and the rising far right they themselves become just as radical about maintaining the status quo, this in turn causes them to shut us socialists out of their spaces. And why do they do that? Because they really don't want people like you talking to people like me, because when people like you talk to people like me you come away from the interaction just a little bit more red than you were yesterday. They see that happening everywhere, and the only method they have to deal with it is to prevent the mixing of groups.

When I start hearing my liberal in-groups parrot such talking points, I take a step back and remind myself this is emotional, not rational, discourse and is not a productive way to discuss sociopolitical issues with others.

This is precisely when someone sometimes needs a verbal slap. One of the only tools we have for moving people in the online space is creating discomfort, and if creating discomfort in someone over the way one interaction occurs brings them towards behaving differently in a future interaction then it is a valid and useful tool to have available. Some people need a dressing down before they open up. Some people do not.