And yes, I know people will say block keywords and communities, but people don’t understand some communities have rules and people must follow them.
And yes, I know people will say block keywords and communities, but people don’t understand some communities have rules and people must follow them.
The issue with a “no politics” rule though is that everything is political. It ends up just being the mods removing what they want to remove and letting what they want to see stay.
Okay and if the users of that community are happy with that and you are free to stay away, where is the problem exactly?
The issue is that users generally don’t get a say. Even in the fediverse, moderators aren’t chosen democratically. Yeah, you can start your own community and try to build it up, but inertia is not in your favor.
Anyway, my point is that a “no politics” rule is not really reasonable. You can have one, and you can enforce it however you want. It will always just end up causing issues though. For example: look up Nazi degenerate art. It’s just art, right? However, to them it was political, and it was political in a way they didn’t like, so they removed it from society.
No moderator is perfect. Even if you trust them, blurry rules probably aren’t the best. There’s better ways to define the intent than “no politics” that create clear borders of what’s allowed and what isn’t. Blurry rules are usually best for those who want to abuse it.
I am excited to see how your lemmy instance works out. When will it go online?
I just saw this post on “All”. I’m not part of this community and I don’t care to open an alternative for it. I’m just point out how blurry rules are open for abuse. Just because you agree with the person running things today doesn’t mean someone in the future won’t use it to remove something you want to stay. I don’t understand how people don’t get this yet.
Yes that is because they don’t carry any of the responsibilities of running the server. Why would they be allowed to decide?
I didn’t say they should. Your comment implied that they did (or at least implies participation is consent). I just pointed out that they, in fact, do not. There is no value judgement in that statement.