4 ms·

It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your prefe

It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?

brigandish 4y ago
Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?
- test098 4y ago
  Because you don't seem to share their values and have a problem with the way they choose to collaborate with others.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests. They could simply disagree in a polite and reasonable way. More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?
    - test098 4y ago
      > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests > Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. You haven't answered the question why, you're begging the question. You can scroll up and see what I asked and perhaps finally answer it. > > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? > Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago. This is a non-sequitur. Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project, I've criticised their stated position and the way they handled a polite issue request (not a PR). Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? When you see a question I'd be grateful if you could try answering it instead of trying to answer the straw man version of me you've created in your head.
        test098 4y ago
        > Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project > It seems that not only has "community of leftist[s]" given up on free speech (as is the vogue), they've given up on real federation too. This... seems like dismissal. They claim to be a federated project, you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech" makes this not a federated project and is an abandonment of real free speech (again, your idea of it). > Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances? Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior? > Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you "have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests," which you believe the maintainers are guilty of. Hence, it's likely you wouldn't want to listen to them because you have a problem with how they communicate, i.e. the way that they would communicate with you. I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand. The lack of understanding is all yours, as you've managed to conflate the developers with the users of Lemmy - is it really just them on this alternative to Reddit? I also wonder why the hostility within a network goes up as the hate speech goes down, it seems counterproductive. > Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances? If you were their lawyer or their dad I would understand this need to come up with an excuse, but you're not. > Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior? I could try but I already have evidence of hostility that backs up my claim, why would I start working to satisfy a different claim that you'd like to make on my behalf, presumably for your benefit here, when I asked you to back up your claim but you've provided nothing? That makes no sense. There's something like 10 days to respond to a comment on HN so you can still do it. > you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech" You mean, the standard idea given by those who support free speech? Yes, that idea. > makes this not a federated project Reddit also has servers that talk to each other but won't allow others to join its network that it doesn't control, it's not considered federated either.
viridian 4y ago
Lemmy can do what they want, but they are both being bad stewards, and hurting their own chances of success by rejecting what is typically a core tenet of federation: maximizing interoperability by default. The nature of federated networks is such that the vast majority of nodes by count will always be more or less default configured, and serving a tiny, single digit or low double digit population. In spite of their miniscule size, they almost always punch above their weight in terms of content produced, which makes sense, given that at least one of those dozen or so people was at least driven enough to build their own platform. Keeping these small networks in the network is generally very high value, and so generally you want to maximize federation by default. Sending some messages, either inbound or outbound into the ether, without explanation, silently weakens the network and lowers interactivity of the entire federated graph. Maybe messages with slurs are so bad that the cost is worth the benefit, but its far from a free choice, and it's one that an API team should view as a solemn, painful compromise - hurting the network and the interface in order to keep it safe. That doesn't seem to be the attitude or level of respect the Lemmy devs give their own decisions however, which is why I'd consider them bad stewards of their own project.
- test098 4y ago
  These are valid criticisms and I totally understand your point of view. Thank you for the response!

It sounds like you wouldn't want to be part of Lemmy's federated network in the first place. Maybe use a network that you find more palatable? Why do your preferences trump theirs?

brigandish 4y ago

Why wouldn't I want to listen to what myriad people have to say on the Lemmy network?

test098 4y ago
Because you don't seem to share their values and have a problem with the way they choose to collaborate with others.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests. They could simply disagree in a polite and reasonable way. More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to?
  - test098 4y ago
    > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > > Yes, I have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests > Again - this means that you probably don't want to use this project, then. You haven't answered the question why, you're begging the question. You can scroll up and see what I asked and perhaps finally answer it. > > More importantly (for our discussion), why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? > Because you've dismissed their entire project based on their comments in a single PR from years ago. This is a non-sequitur. Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project, I've criticised their stated position and the way they handled a polite issue request (not a PR). Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? When you see a question I'd be grateful if you could try answering it instead of trying to answer the straw man version of me you've created in your head.
      - test098 4y ago
        > Firstly, I haven't "dismissed" their entire project > It seems that not only has "community of leftist[s]" given up on free speech (as is the vogue), they've given up on real federation too. This... seems like dismissal. They claim to be a federated project, you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech" makes this not a federated project and is an abandonment of real free speech (again, your idea of it). > Secondly, why is that single thread not indicative of the attitude of the developers? Do you have other issue threads available on the same or a similar topic where they were less hostile? Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances? Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior? > Lastly, it doesn't answer the question at all. Why would I have to share someone's values in order to think they're worth listening to? Because you "have a problem with overtly hostile responses to reasonable and polite requests," which you believe the maintainers are guilty of. Hence, it's likely you wouldn't want to listen to them because you have a problem with how they communicate, i.e. the way that they would communicate with you. I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > I can keep answering this question over and over again in different ways, but I'm not sure how to make this simpler to understand. The lack of understanding is all yours, as you've managed to conflate the developers with the users of Lemmy - is it really just them on this alternative to Reddit? I also wonder why the hostility within a network goes up as the hate speech goes down, it seems counterproductive. > Think about the last time you were curt with someone - do you believe that it is indicative of your general attitude, or indicative of your attitude because of some extenuating circumstances? If you were their lawyer or their dad I would understand this need to come up with an excuse, but you're not. > Can you please collect some other issue threads on the same or a similar topic that you believe establishes a pattern of behavior? I could try but I already have evidence of hostility that backs up my claim, why would I start working to satisfy a different claim that you'd like to make on my behalf, presumably for your benefit here, when I asked you to back up your claim but you've provided nothing? That makes no sense. There's something like 10 days to respond to a comment on HN so you can still do it. > you claim that their lack of alignment with your idea of "free speech" You mean, the standard idea given by those who support free speech? Yes, that idea. > makes this not a federated project Reddit also has servers that talk to each other but won't allow others to join its network that it doesn't control, it's not considered federated either.

viridian 4y ago

Lemmy can do what they want, but they are both being bad stewards, and hurting their own chances of success by rejecting what is typically a core tenet of federation: maximizing interoperability by default. The nature of federated networks is such that the vast majority of nodes by count will always be more or less default configured, and serving a tiny, single digit or low double digit population. In spite of their miniscule size, they almost always punch above their weight in terms of content produced, which makes sense, given that at least one of those dozen or so people was at least driven enough to build their own platform. Keeping these small networks in the network is generally very high value, and so generally you want to maximize federation by default. Sending some messages, either inbound or outbound into the ether, without explanation, silently weakens the network and lowers interactivity of the entire federated graph. Maybe messages with slurs are so bad that the cost is worth the benefit, but its far from a free choice, and it's one that an API team should view as a solemn, painful compromise - hurting the network and the interface in order to keep it safe. That doesn't seem to be the attitude or level of respect the Lemmy devs give their own decisions however, which is why I'd consider them bad stewards of their own project.

test098 4y ago
These are valid criticisms and I totally understand your point of view. Thank you for the response!