It became the only reliable source of information I had. People posted links with a minimal amount of commentary, picking and choosing the best content from other social media networks. They’re not doing it to “build a brand” because that’s not a thing in the Fediverse. It’s too disjointed to be a place to build a newsletter subscription base.
I know you probably didn’t mean this, but I don’t think accessibility barriers are good. Diversity of thought is strength and bad comments naturally sink to the bottom.
After seeing how many terrorist ideologies have been allowed to thrive by claiming First Amendment protection since 2016.
No.
“Diversity of thought” my ass. I’m sure your wonderfully-diverse thoughts are just what all of us need to hear, but if they can’t pass muster under human moderation, they’re not worth platforming.
Pretending these comments only come from “stupid” people is abelist and provably false.
I am defending those with barriers, not fascists.
Turning to authorities to suppress fascism doesn’t seem practical. We need to cultivate good democratic systems and education systems that create citizens capable of thinking critically and turning down bad ideologies on their own. Citizens should be empowered, not coddled.
LOL
Referring to self-hosting, human moderators as “authorities” is hilarious.
I remember when, here in Missouri, the people wanted to regulate predatory payday lenders. Those opposed called their fucking organizations “Such and Such for Equal Credit Access”. Sounds nice right? Almost like the term “Diversity of Thought”.
What you refer to as “empowerment”, I refer to as a cancer. It needs to be cut out, like they did back in the day on Cable Street.
If you feel so disempowered, go have a conversation with Grok. He’ll make you feel super special.
Apologies, I think we are talking past each other. I think I misunderstood your initial comment. It read like a suggestion that lemmy’s more extreme communities were terroristic and a criticism of the first amendment, which suggested that you believe the government should be allowed to dictate what kind of speech is or isn’t acceptable – in particular on these little platforms. My comment was in response to that notion.
Re-reading it with your second comment, I think you’re saying that “terrorist ideologies” have been allowed to develop on conventional social-media by claiming first amendment protections in order to not moderate communities, and 2016 was not in reference to early lemmy but to the MAGA movement. That makes more sense, and I generally agree that conventional social-media follows irresponsible stewardship practices.