Okay, but hereās the thing: youāre not entitled to every community that exists. People can decide for themselves who they want to associate with. And if an admin is the one footing the bill for the infrastructure, their word is final on who gets through the door.
If you donāt want mods or admins overruling you, then you need to run your own server. Thatās the price of control. I already do this with two Fediverse servers, and I fully intend to do the same with a federated forum server.
I am starting to feel sincerely like it would be a good idea for YPTB to adopt a new rule: If you come in with the point of view āTHE MODS ARE GODS THEIR DECISIONS MAY NOT BE QUESTIONEDā, they get banned instantly, with a short reply from the moderator saying āCan do! My decisions may not be questioned.ā
(Temp banned obviously. Iām not a monster.)
Obviously the admins can do what they want with their server, and mods likewise within their communities. What weāre set up to discuss in this community is whether or not theyāve used that control ā which theyāre obviously able to wield ā in a manner that makes them a twatrocket.
Thereās a whole philosophy of cooperative endeavor involved here. I just recently got a temp ban that was 100% justified, Iām fine with that. Lots of mods use their mod powers in a way thatās perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and part of a healthy society is that people in whom is vested some level of control over the surroundings, we can talk about whether theyāre being reasonable with it. Almost everyone is, and sometimes there are reasonable discussions to be had about if they unintentionally stepped over a line or offended someone or something. This whole model where itās little warring fiefdoms, and Iām going to be a screaming unrestrained dickhead if I want to when youāre in my fiefdom and if you donāt like it, go somewhere else, is one that people are able to adopt. I donāt think it is a good one. I feel like ignoring the feedback you get, if you do decide thatās your MO, is going to lead to a bad engagement with the rest of the community and a lack of success for your new instance. Itās a give and take, people can talk, sometimes when people are telling you youāre out of line, theyāre just kind of looking out for you and letting you know they take offense and probably others do too, you know?
My biggest concern isnāt the āgeneralā Lemmy communityāIām focused on building my community. If a group of people on some distant server decide they donāt like me, thatās perfectly fine. Iām not there to serve them.
But if that dislike turns into dogpiling or harassmentāas Iāve already experiencedāIāll use the tools available: blocking, banning, and defederation. Once my server is live, those are exactly the measures Iāll rely on.
And yes, I know this approach may feel at odds with the broader Lemmy culture. But Lemmy itself is still quite smallāaround 36,000 users. Thatās a drop in the bucket compared to the wider Fediverse, and practically invisible next to social media as a whole.
Thatās why Iām confident I can create something federated that doesnāt have to follow Lemmyās norms or culture.
Yeah, I get that. And youāre right, you can do whatever you want including deciding āthis community is all just wrong and Iām going to make something right,ā and thatās the nice thing about user-hosted networks like this. And Iāve certainly come down on the side of āthe Lemmy community can get lost because the majority is wrong on whatever issue weāre talking aboutā in the past.
Personally in my judgement I donāt really see it as harassment in this case, I just see people disagreeing strongly with your actions and then getting snarky or insulting about it as people are wont to do ā like I said, the only thing I really know about you is that you started banning people for downvotes and ābroā both of which seem ridiculous to me. (And also a tactical error, since rightly or wrongly itāll invite a kind of dogpiling publicity which I donāt think you want.) But yeah, everyone has the ability to draw their own distinction and follow through on their own server / own community based on you being right and everyone else being wrong versus the other way around.
Well, I can only tell you what actually happened: dogpiling and harassment did occur. I had to lock down !fediversenews, and even after that, people followed me into other communities I moderated to continue harassing me.
At that point, the intention behind the original post matters less than the outcome. If the purpose of a community is to amplify outrage, itās not surprising when some people inevitably take it too far.
Well but like I say, I think you made kind of a tactical error if you donāt want stuff like that to happen. I have plenty of times seen a mod ban for some reason that almost everyone disagrees with. I have never seen a mod snoop on the upvotes for the banned comment and also attempt to ban people from expressing their approval for the banned content, and then send every one of them a snotty DM about it. I think thatās very obviously an overreach, and there is sort of a societal immune system that automatically wants to backlash against that kind of thing by marking the person who did it as āenemyā and making sure they hear about it that that behavior is unwanted. And of course the internet being what it is, sometimes that backlash takes on a life of its own and turns into something incredibly toxic and unwarranted. I think though that this idea that youāll set yourself apart from that kind of thing ever happening to you, because you can just run your own server and control everything about how people interact with you, is just a non starter. I think reexamining your own behavior is a lot more positive way to approach making sure you wonāt get harassed as much in the future.
IDK man, maybe Iām wrong or I missed finding out about some important details of how it happened. And for all I know some people did harass you in some out-of-pocket way. Iām just saying how I see it, thatās all.
You know, I only tried the private message approach because someone suggested it was the best way to de-escalate. Before that, I would simply banāno conversation, no debate.
On the servers I run myself, I go even further: I de-federate. No warnings. Itās clean, simple, and fast.
Where I misjudged thingsāand I see this clearly nowāwas in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They donāt. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, itās best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation wonāt lead anywhere productive.
So yes, messaging turned out to be a big waste of time. The real takeaway for me is simple: own the space, set clear expectations, and act quickly when problems arise.
I think the issue was banning for giving votes you didnāt agree with, not with sending the DMs. Iāve sent DMs instead of doing admin actions before, just to open a dialogue, or to give people a chance to push back or explain before I take some kind of action, and that part seems fine. I canāt even really articulate why it was that this rubbed people so badly the wrong way, but I think sending the DMs and getting in an extended back and forth did somehow make it worse. Definitely doubling down and banning people (and also DMing them) because their reaction and vote on it wasnāt the ācorrectā and permitted one according to you made it worse.
People can vote. People can react. Setting yourself up as this lord and arbiter of whatās right and wrong is always going to make a backlash. If it was me, I would have made a public reply instead of a DM so that other people can weigh in, I would have framed it in terms of āwhat I allow hereā and made sure to clarify the rules on the sidebar instead of framing your point of view as the one thatās objectively the right one (which youāre still doing here, when you describe calling someone ābroā as ātoxicā instead of saying that you personally think itās rude and donāt allow it). And then if they still donāt agree, youāre still within your rights to just say yes okay fine but thatās the rules, sorry, and ban them (and then move on yes).
I still think you would have gotten backlash, but framing it in that way would have at least shown you have some awareness that these categories and judgements are just your categories and judgements, and regardless of what the Lemmy softwareās mod controls have led you to believe, other people are allowed to have their own that are different from yours. If youād done that I donāt think it would have really developed to anything, there might have been one YPTB post about it at worst and then people would have shrugged and moved on with their day.
Iāll say this again: the DM wasnāt about a single vote. It was about endorsing toxic behaviour.
Now, about this word ābro.ā On the surface, it comes across as casual, even friendly. But in practice, ābroā tends to be shorthand for a culture that excuses arrogance, entitlement, and pack mentality under the banner of camaraderie.
A ābroā is the person who laughs at cruelty because itās entertaining. The one who treats someone elseās discomfort as sport. The one who believes inside jokes and mockery outweigh basic respect. That isnāt just harmless slangāitās a posture that normalizes being inconsiderate.
So when people lean on the word ābro,ā theyāre not just using a throwaway expression. Theyāre reinforcing a culture built on lowest-common-denominator bonding, where aggression is rewarded, harm is brushed off, and civility is treated like weakness. Thatās not a culture I want to foster in spaces Iām responsible for.
Now, you may disagree, and thatās fair. But this is my interpretation. And when everyone doubled down on ābroāāusing it in the exact way I find problematicāit only confirmed for me that they were subscribing to bro culture. I donāt do bro, bruh, brah, or dudebro for good reason.
What struck me is that nobody asked why. They just assumed it was a quirk. But to me, itās not a quirkāitās a principle. Maybe these are simply my categories and judgements, but I believe the world genuinely needs fewer bros. Fewer Andrew Tates. Fewer Donald Trumps.
Yes, this is one of my lines in the sand. And the fact that so many people on Lemmy seem comfortable embracing ābroā as an identityāthat, to me, is a real problem.
No, noāmoderators arenāt all-powerful. They do important work, but they also have very real limits.
Administrators, on the other hand, carry much greater authority.
And just because someone doesnāt get along with another person doesnāt mean theyāre automatically entitled to that personās spaces. What I find appealing about the Fediverse is precisely that ability to manage the whole stack myselfāwithout waiting on a distant company like Meta or X to make those decisions for me.
Of course, I could be banned for saying this. But since this thread is about me, and about my upcoming plans, I think itās only fair that I share them openly.
So, in absence of disagreements & conflicts (bcs insta ban/defederation), and building your own community, isnāt that a bit like that the lines of Trump (well, generally politicians to various degrees) or CEOs do?
Bcs with that (in those cases being surrounded by āyes-menā) reaching other specific goals is easier/faster.
I think Iām starting to understand where & how you are going with this, but perhaps not why. CEOs donāt have āa nice communityā as a goal, they have their agenda and timelines/mandates. Their ācommunitiesā are purpose-built (āmoderatedā).
What āuseā (~overall benefit?) is a highly selected federated community?
Itās a genuine question about endgame, how it would look like.
Trump runs a Mastodon forkāTruth Socialāthatās cut off from the broader Fediverse. Thatās the textbook example of building a walled garden surrounded by yes-men.
What Iām doing is the opposite. I will be federating. The difference is that Iāll only connect with servers that are well-maintained, responsibly moderated, and respectful in how they interact.
The key is, I donāt control those remote servers. I canāt dictate their policies, their culture, or their moderation. I only control mine. Thatās the entire point of federationāeach admin curates their own space, and people decide which servers they want to call home.
So users already have choice. Anyone who doesnāt like my standards can join another server with open registrations or spin up their own. Thatās not authoritarian. Thatās freedom of association.
A selective federated community matters because it resists the flattening effect of mass culture. Big, open servers always drift into lowest-common-denominator populismāoutrage cycles dominate, noise overwhelms signal, and actual discussion suffocates. Curation is not about surrounding myself with yes-men. Itās about creating an environment where real conversation can thrive without being hijacked by mob dynamics.
The irony is that pretending hierarchical software is flat and universalāthat it magically represents āthe peopleāāis closer to the politician/CEO move. Thatās the populist trick. At least Iām upfront about the structure and honest about what Iām doing with it.
The endgame isnāt control for its own sake. Itās sustainabilityāa space Iām willing to take responsibility for, that wonāt collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. Youāre big on concept that things are owned.
I believe my work should remain my own, and I should have the freedom to choose who I associate with. The only way to guarantee thatāboth practically and legallyāis by covering the cost of the server myself.
And you absolutely have your own agency as well. It just means you may need to exercise it in a space thatās a better fit for you.
Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. Theyāre not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.
I donāt agree with the idea that everyone is automatically entitled to my server. For me, running a server is about configuring and curating a space Iām prepared to take responsibility for.
The Fediverse gives that same freedom to everyone. If someone doesnāt like how a server is managed, they can join another or create their own. Thatās the strength of the modelāreal choice.
So when I talk about ācontrol,ā Iām talking about shaping my own space, not laying claim to anyone elseās.
Federation is two way, while a blog tends to be one way.
Mastodon does not segment according to interest other than hashtags. Hashtags are non-moderated and can be abused with spam.
I have no problem with people commenting or contributing provided they are good people. Hell, Iāll even host them. Provided, of course, they understand the limitations of that hosting.
But that goes back to what I said previously. Thereās freedom of association, and the Fediverse gives that. Thereās lots of options. You donāt have to interact with me, nor I with you.
Thatās not what Iām saying. Iām saying that if Iām reading this right; the way youāre trying to use it is potentially pathological toxic and doomed.
That stance becomes problematic when a community really grows & becomes more than the sum is itās parts.
(I mean at bigger sizes than a few thousand active users.)
Itās a complex issue, but at some point āyourā infrastructure becomes a community that itself should* be respected.
(*should isnāt the same as needs to, but I think that morally)
I appreciate that youāre raising this in good faith because it is a complex issue. But I see real problems with the idea that infrastructure becomes morally owned by the community once it gets big enough.
Unless that community is actually paying the bills, this so-called moral obligation just shifts the burden onto the one footing the costs. That doesnāt strike me as moral at all.
And online communities are transient by nature. People show up, feel invested for a while, then disappear. To act as if their fleeting sense of ownership creates a lasting obligation on the admin is unrealistic.
Thereās also what Ortega y Gasset warned about in The Revolt of the Masses. When something is said to be āowned by the community,ā it rarely means real stewardship. It means the mass asserts itself and the loudest voices dictate terms. That isnāt democracy. Itās populism built on top of a hierarchy.
Because if the software itself is hierarchical but claims to be āfor the masses,ā that isnāt democracy either. Itās a pyramid structure dressed up in populist rhetoric. The admin still has the keys. The mods still enforce. The users still depend on both.
Thatās why I insist on my own server. Iād rather be upfront: I curate and maintain a space Iām willing to take responsibility for. Thatās not authoritarian and itās not populist. Itās just owning what I host instead of pretending the power structure doesnāt exist.
Yeah, the bit where the owner of infrastructure āownsā the community feels super weird (bcs community are the people & what they produce, the space is the infrastructure).
But I understand what you are saying.
Yeah, I get why the word āownā makes people uneasy. Thereās a sincere belief that communities should belong to the commonsāthat no one should control the space, that it should be shared, stewarded, collective.
I sympathize with that. I really do.
But thatās not how the software works.
Lemmy isnāt structured like a commons. Neither is Mastodon. Neither is most federated software. These platforms still rely on admins, moderators, and users. There are hierarchies, permissions, access levels. Someone has root. Someone pays the bills. Someone can click āban.ā
If youāre building a community on someone elseās server, you are doing so inside their infrastructure. And under the law, they are the legal operator and data controller. That gives them full authorityātechnical and legalāover the domain, the storage, the moderation tools, and the continued existence of what you built.
So yesāeverything you post on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter lives behind walls. Even if you retain copyright, youāve handed over a perpetual license to do whatever they want with it. They own the platform. They control the archive. Youāre not publishing. Youāre donating.
The Fediverse is betterābut letās not pretend itās structurally different. If you build something inside someone elseās instance, they own the keys. If they kick you out, itās gone. Thatās not a glitch. Thatās the model.
If you truly want a commonsāa system with no admins, no mods, no hierarchyāyou need to build software that works that way. But thatās not Lemmy. Not Mastodon. Not Misskey. Not PeerTube.
In this system, the only real recourse is to run your own server. Thatās where your power begins. Thatās where your autonomy lives.
And thatās why I say: I want to own my community.
Because if I donāt, someone else will. And Iāve seen what happens when they do.
I get where we are, but I think there is a lot of nuance about this - between a policed community and a totally anarchist one (where everyone is the police). The later you prob see as that instantly & whims of the masses guided by populism.
A bit like irl in a public square. It def depends on the state laws & enforcement (sever & community mods), and the people who frequent the square (āassociationā?), but most of behaviour is provided by the people. What they talk and agree is theirs.
I get that server owners āare payingā (thatās why I believe such communities/instances should be powered by donations, I think my previous home lemm.ee was), but they donāt create content. And curating content (beyond a fixed set of rules everyone has access to upfront) by curating users is a bit like playing with AI (add a bit of this, ups a bit too much of that, etc).
Thatās why folk believe (I think rightfully) even a community on Reddit or Twatter is the users, not the mods. Like, you can adopt someone, house then, even ban disown, yet you donāt own them & their work isnāt yours. You do it bcs you want that in your life or want that for others.
I get what youāre saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commonsāsomething where peopleās conversations arenāt at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But thatās not how Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, or any of the current platforms work. These systems are hierarchical by design. They require admins, they require mods, and everyone else becomes āusers.ā Thatās not a public square, thatās tenancy.
Even donations donāt change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.eeādid the community there want to be wiped out overnight? Of course not. But the admin pulled the plug, and that was the end of it. Thatās the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about āusers.ā There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone elseās server and hoping theyāll be benevolent forever.
Thatās the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we donāt have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one adminās decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
Iām arguing a community is possible within a prison population. And these communities are moderated yet still not owned by the prison (even if the prisoners might be, or even get executed, or punished, isolated, removed, etc).
I donāt know who is saying social networks arenāt hieratical in nature or where that idea would come from.
Or what is wrong with that. Only in a perfect anarchy would peers moderate themselves. And most folk arenāt anarchists (in the sense they donāt want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
On one side youāve got pure authoritarianismāadmins as unchecked rulers. On the other side youāve got utopian anarchyāpeers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. Iām not in either camp.
What Iām pointing out is the middle: these platforms are hierarchical by design. That means admins do hold systemic power, but it also means admins have responsibility for how that power is exercised. My stance is simply to acknowledge that reality instead of pretending hierarchy doesnāt exist.
Selective federation is part of that. Itās not about isolation or dominationāitās about setting clear boundaries for what Iām willing to host and connect with, while still participating in the broader network. Users still have choices. They can join another server or start their own. Thatās federation working as intended.
So this isnāt an extreme position. Itās the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and donāt pretend current software is something it isnāt.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://europe.pub/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Flazysoci.al%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fcb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
Okay, but hereās the thing: youāre not entitled to every community that exists. People can decide for themselves who they want to associate with. And if an admin is the one footing the bill for the infrastructure, their word is final on who gets through the door.
If you donāt want mods or admins overruling you, then you need to run your own server. Thatās the price of control. I already do this with two Fediverse servers, and I fully intend to do the same with a federated forum server.
I am starting to feel sincerely like it would be a good idea for YPTB to adopt a new rule: If you come in with the point of view āTHE MODS ARE GODS THEIR DECISIONS MAY NOT BE QUESTIONEDā, they get banned instantly, with a short reply from the moderator saying āCan do! My decisions may not be questioned.ā
(Temp banned obviously. Iām not a monster.)
Obviously the admins can do what they want with their server, and mods likewise within their communities. What weāre set up to discuss in this community is whether or not theyāve used that control ā which theyāre obviously able to wield ā in a manner that makes them a twatrocket.
Thereās a whole philosophy of cooperative endeavor involved here. I just recently got a temp ban that was 100% justified, Iām fine with that. Lots of mods use their mod powers in a way thatās perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and part of a healthy society is that people in whom is vested some level of control over the surroundings, we can talk about whether theyāre being reasonable with it. Almost everyone is, and sometimes there are reasonable discussions to be had about if they unintentionally stepped over a line or offended someone or something. This whole model where itās little warring fiefdoms, and Iām going to be a screaming unrestrained dickhead if I want to when youāre in my fiefdom and if you donāt like it, go somewhere else, is one that people are able to adopt. I donāt think it is a good one. I feel like ignoring the feedback you get, if you do decide thatās your MO, is going to lead to a bad engagement with the rest of the community and a lack of success for your new instance. Itās a give and take, people can talk, sometimes when people are telling you youāre out of line, theyāre just kind of looking out for you and letting you know they take offense and probably others do too, you know?
Iāll respond to your edit directly.
My biggest concern isnāt the āgeneralā Lemmy communityāIām focused on building my community. If a group of people on some distant server decide they donāt like me, thatās perfectly fine. Iām not there to serve them.
But if that dislike turns into dogpiling or harassmentāas Iāve already experiencedāIāll use the tools available: blocking, banning, and defederation. Once my server is live, those are exactly the measures Iāll rely on.
And yes, I know this approach may feel at odds with the broader Lemmy culture. But Lemmy itself is still quite smallāaround 36,000 users. Thatās a drop in the bucket compared to the wider Fediverse, and practically invisible next to social media as a whole.
Thatās why Iām confident I can create something federated that doesnāt have to follow Lemmyās norms or culture.
Yeah, I get that. And youāre right, you can do whatever you want including deciding āthis community is all just wrong and Iām going to make something right,ā and thatās the nice thing about user-hosted networks like this. And Iāve certainly come down on the side of āthe Lemmy community can get lost because the majority is wrong on whatever issue weāre talking aboutā in the past.
Personally in my judgement I donāt really see it as harassment in this case, I just see people disagreeing strongly with your actions and then getting snarky or insulting about it as people are wont to do ā like I said, the only thing I really know about you is that you started banning people for downvotes and ābroā both of which seem ridiculous to me. (And also a tactical error, since rightly or wrongly itāll invite a kind of dogpiling publicity which I donāt think you want.) But yeah, everyone has the ability to draw their own distinction and follow through on their own server / own community based on you being right and everyone else being wrong versus the other way around.
Well, I can only tell you what actually happened: dogpiling and harassment did occur. I had to lock down !fediversenews, and even after that, people followed me into other communities I moderated to continue harassing me.
At that point, the intention behind the original post matters less than the outcome. If the purpose of a community is to amplify outrage, itās not surprising when some people inevitably take it too far.
Well but like I say, I think you made kind of a tactical error if you donāt want stuff like that to happen. I have plenty of times seen a mod ban for some reason that almost everyone disagrees with. I have never seen a mod snoop on the upvotes for the banned comment and also attempt to ban people from expressing their approval for the banned content, and then send every one of them a snotty DM about it. I think thatās very obviously an overreach, and there is sort of a societal immune system that automatically wants to backlash against that kind of thing by marking the person who did it as āenemyā and making sure they hear about it that that behavior is unwanted. And of course the internet being what it is, sometimes that backlash takes on a life of its own and turns into something incredibly toxic and unwarranted. I think though that this idea that youāll set yourself apart from that kind of thing ever happening to you, because you can just run your own server and control everything about how people interact with you, is just a non starter. I think reexamining your own behavior is a lot more positive way to approach making sure you wonāt get harassed as much in the future.
IDK man, maybe Iām wrong or I missed finding out about some important details of how it happened. And for all I know some people did harass you in some out-of-pocket way. Iām just saying how I see it, thatās all.
You know, I only tried the private message approach because someone suggested it was the best way to de-escalate. Before that, I would simply banāno conversation, no debate.
On the servers I run myself, I go even further: I de-federate. No warnings. Itās clean, simple, and fast.
Where I misjudged thingsāand I see this clearly nowāwas in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They donāt. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, itās best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation wonāt lead anywhere productive.
So yes, messaging turned out to be a big waste of time. The real takeaway for me is simple: own the space, set clear expectations, and act quickly when problems arise.
I think the issue was banning for giving votes you didnāt agree with, not with sending the DMs. Iāve sent DMs instead of doing admin actions before, just to open a dialogue, or to give people a chance to push back or explain before I take some kind of action, and that part seems fine. I canāt even really articulate why it was that this rubbed people so badly the wrong way, but I think sending the DMs and getting in an extended back and forth did somehow make it worse. Definitely doubling down and banning people (and also DMing them) because their reaction and vote on it wasnāt the ācorrectā and permitted one according to you made it worse.
People can vote. People can react. Setting yourself up as this lord and arbiter of whatās right and wrong is always going to make a backlash. If it was me, I would have made a public reply instead of a DM so that other people can weigh in, I would have framed it in terms of āwhat I allow hereā and made sure to clarify the rules on the sidebar instead of framing your point of view as the one thatās objectively the right one (which youāre still doing here, when you describe calling someone ābroā as ātoxicā instead of saying that you personally think itās rude and donāt allow it). And then if they still donāt agree, youāre still within your rights to just say yes okay fine but thatās the rules, sorry, and ban them (and then move on yes).
I still think you would have gotten backlash, but framing it in that way would have at least shown you have some awareness that these categories and judgements are just your categories and judgements, and regardless of what the Lemmy softwareās mod controls have led you to believe, other people are allowed to have their own that are different from yours. If youād done that I donāt think it would have really developed to anything, there might have been one YPTB post about it at worst and then people would have shrugged and moved on with their day.
Iāll say this again: the DM wasnāt about a single vote. It was about endorsing toxic behaviour.
Now, about this word ābro.ā On the surface, it comes across as casual, even friendly. But in practice, ābroā tends to be shorthand for a culture that excuses arrogance, entitlement, and pack mentality under the banner of camaraderie.
A ābroā is the person who laughs at cruelty because itās entertaining. The one who treats someone elseās discomfort as sport. The one who believes inside jokes and mockery outweigh basic respect. That isnāt just harmless slangāitās a posture that normalizes being inconsiderate.
So when people lean on the word ābro,ā theyāre not just using a throwaway expression. Theyāre reinforcing a culture built on lowest-common-denominator bonding, where aggression is rewarded, harm is brushed off, and civility is treated like weakness. Thatās not a culture I want to foster in spaces Iām responsible for.
Now, you may disagree, and thatās fair. But this is my interpretation. And when everyone doubled down on ābroāāusing it in the exact way I find problematicāit only confirmed for me that they were subscribing to bro culture. I donāt do bro, bruh, brah, or dudebro for good reason.
What struck me is that nobody asked why. They just assumed it was a quirk. But to me, itās not a quirkāitās a principle. Maybe these are simply my categories and judgements, but I believe the world genuinely needs fewer bros. Fewer Andrew Tates. Fewer Donald Trumps.
Yes, this is one of my lines in the sand. And the fact that so many people on Lemmy seem comfortable embracing ābroā as an identityāthat, to me, is a real problem.
No, noāmoderators arenāt all-powerful. They do important work, but they also have very real limits.
Administrators, on the other hand, carry much greater authority.
And just because someone doesnāt get along with another person doesnāt mean theyāre automatically entitled to that personās spaces. What I find appealing about the Fediverse is precisely that ability to manage the whole stack myselfāwithout waiting on a distant company like Meta or X to make those decisions for me.
Of course, I could be banned for saying this. But since this thread is about me, and about my upcoming plans, I think itās only fair that I share them openly.
TIL using a colloquialism is the same thing as not getting along.
You and I disagree on whether itās just a harmless colloquialism.
I donāt like bro-talk. Because bro-talk feeds bro cultureāand bro culture is something I want no part of.
And according to you that disagreement also means we donāt get along. Because otherwise you wouldnāt be banning people for saying bro, bro.
You would be correct.
So, in absence of disagreements & conflicts (bcs insta ban/defederation), and building your own community, isnāt that a bit like that the lines of Trump (well, generally politicians to various degrees) or CEOs do?
Bcs with that (in those cases being surrounded by āyes-menā) reaching other specific goals is easier/faster.
I think Iām starting to understand where & how you are going with this, but perhaps not why. CEOs donāt have āa nice communityā as a goal, they have their agenda and timelines/mandates. Their ācommunitiesā are purpose-built (āmoderatedā).
What āuseā (~overall benefit?) is a highly selected federated community?
Itās a genuine question about endgame, how it would look like.
The Trump comparison actually cuts the other way.
Trump runs a Mastodon forkāTruth Socialāthatās cut off from the broader Fediverse. Thatās the textbook example of building a walled garden surrounded by yes-men.
What Iām doing is the opposite. I will be federating. The difference is that Iāll only connect with servers that are well-maintained, responsibly moderated, and respectful in how they interact.
The key is, I donāt control those remote servers. I canāt dictate their policies, their culture, or their moderation. I only control mine. Thatās the entire point of federationāeach admin curates their own space, and people decide which servers they want to call home.
So users already have choice. Anyone who doesnāt like my standards can join another server with open registrations or spin up their own. Thatās not authoritarian. Thatās freedom of association.
A selective federated community matters because it resists the flattening effect of mass culture. Big, open servers always drift into lowest-common-denominator populismāoutrage cycles dominate, noise overwhelms signal, and actual discussion suffocates. Curation is not about surrounding myself with yes-men. Itās about creating an environment where real conversation can thrive without being hijacked by mob dynamics.
The irony is that pretending hierarchical software is flat and universalāthat it magically represents āthe peopleāāis closer to the politician/CEO move. Thatās the populist trick. At least Iām upfront about the structure and honest about what Iām doing with it.
The endgame isnāt control for its own sake. Itās sustainabilityāa space Iām willing to take responsibility for, that wonāt collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Ah, soā¦
It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. Youāre big on concept that things are owned.
I believe my work should remain my own, and I should have the freedom to choose who I associate with. The only way to guarantee thatāboth practically and legallyāis by covering the cost of the server myself.
And you absolutely have your own agency as well. It just means you may need to exercise it in a space thatās a better fit for you.
Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. Theyāre not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.
Generally speaking, I get along with people just fine. But I also believe you need to have principles. Without them, what do you really stand for?
What does standing for anything have to do with this?
Iām not entitled to or interested in a community you run, but this is really cringe and implies a lot of really awful shit about you.
You get how that looks, right? Wanting ātotal controlā of a community?
I donāt agree with the idea that everyone is automatically entitled to my server. For me, running a server is about configuring and curating a space Iām prepared to take responsibility for.
The Fediverse gives that same freedom to everyone. If someone doesnāt like how a server is managed, they can join another or create their own. Thatās the strength of the modelāreal choice.
So when I talk about ācontrol,ā Iām talking about shaping my own space, not laying claim to anyone elseās.
Howās that different from having your personal site or blog? Because that sounds like what you want, instead of a fediverse instance
Federation is two way, while a blog tends to be one way.
Mastodon does not segment according to interest other than hashtags. Hashtags are non-moderated and can be abused with spam.
I have no problem with people commenting or contributing provided they are good people. Hell, Iāll even host them. Provided, of course, they understand the limitations of that hosting.
If I had my way, everyone would be self-hosting.
But if the space includes people, this stops being so simple.
Sure, because people are complex.
But that goes back to what I said previously. Thereās freedom of association, and the Fediverse gives that. Thereās lots of options. You donāt have to interact with me, nor I with you.
Thatās not what Iām saying. Iām saying that if Iām reading this right; the way youāre trying to use it is potentially pathological toxic and doomed.
That stance becomes problematic when a community really grows & becomes more than the sum is itās parts.
(I mean at bigger sizes than a few thousand active users.)
Itās a complex issue, but at some point āyourā infrastructure becomes a community that itself should* be respected.
(*should isnāt the same as needs to, but I think that morally)
I appreciate that youāre raising this in good faith because it is a complex issue. But I see real problems with the idea that infrastructure becomes morally owned by the community once it gets big enough.
Unless that community is actually paying the bills, this so-called moral obligation just shifts the burden onto the one footing the costs. That doesnāt strike me as moral at all.
And online communities are transient by nature. People show up, feel invested for a while, then disappear. To act as if their fleeting sense of ownership creates a lasting obligation on the admin is unrealistic.
Thereās also what Ortega y Gasset warned about in The Revolt of the Masses. When something is said to be āowned by the community,ā it rarely means real stewardship. It means the mass asserts itself and the loudest voices dictate terms. That isnāt democracy. Itās populism built on top of a hierarchy.
Because if the software itself is hierarchical but claims to be āfor the masses,ā that isnāt democracy either. Itās a pyramid structure dressed up in populist rhetoric. The admin still has the keys. The mods still enforce. The users still depend on both.
Thatās why I insist on my own server. Iād rather be upfront: I curate and maintain a space Iām willing to take responsibility for. Thatās not authoritarian and itās not populist. Itās just owning what I host instead of pretending the power structure doesnāt exist.
Yeah, the bit where the owner of infrastructure āownsā the community feels super weird (bcs community are the people & what they produce, the space is the infrastructure).
But I understand what you are saying.
Thx for the reply.
Yeah, I get why the word āownā makes people uneasy. Thereās a sincere belief that communities should belong to the commonsāthat no one should control the space, that it should be shared, stewarded, collective.
I sympathize with that. I really do.
But thatās not how the software works.
Lemmy isnāt structured like a commons. Neither is Mastodon. Neither is most federated software. These platforms still rely on admins, moderators, and users. There are hierarchies, permissions, access levels. Someone has root. Someone pays the bills. Someone can click āban.ā
If youāre building a community on someone elseās server, you are doing so inside their infrastructure. And under the law, they are the legal operator and data controller. That gives them full authorityātechnical and legalāover the domain, the storage, the moderation tools, and the continued existence of what you built.
So yesāeverything you post on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter lives behind walls. Even if you retain copyright, youāve handed over a perpetual license to do whatever they want with it. They own the platform. They control the archive. Youāre not publishing. Youāre donating.
The Fediverse is betterābut letās not pretend itās structurally different. If you build something inside someone elseās instance, they own the keys. If they kick you out, itās gone. Thatās not a glitch. Thatās the model.
If you truly want a commonsāa system with no admins, no mods, no hierarchyāyou need to build software that works that way. But thatās not Lemmy. Not Mastodon. Not Misskey. Not PeerTube.
In this system, the only real recourse is to run your own server. Thatās where your power begins. Thatās where your autonomy lives.
And thatās why I say: I want to own my community.
Because if I donāt, someone else will. And Iāve seen what happens when they do.
I get where we are, but I think there is a lot of nuance about this - between a policed community and a totally anarchist one (where everyone is the police). The later you prob see as that instantly & whims of the masses guided by populism.
A bit like irl in a public square. It def depends on the state laws & enforcement (sever & community mods), and the people who frequent the square (āassociationā?), but most of behaviour is provided by the people. What they talk and agree is theirs.
I get that server owners āare payingā (thatās why I believe such communities/instances should be powered by donations, I think my previous home lemm.ee was), but they donāt create content. And curating content (beyond a fixed set of rules everyone has access to upfront) by curating users is a bit like playing with AI (add a bit of this, ups a bit too much of that, etc).
Thatās why folk believe (I think rightfully) even a community on Reddit or Twatter is the users, not the mods. Like, you can adopt someone, house then, even
bandisown, yet you donāt own them & their work isnāt yours. You do it bcs you want that in your life or want that for others.I get what youāre saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commonsāsomething where peopleās conversations arenāt at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But thatās not how Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, or any of the current platforms work. These systems are hierarchical by design. They require admins, they require mods, and everyone else becomes āusers.ā Thatās not a public square, thatās tenancy.
Even donations donāt change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.eeādid the community there want to be wiped out overnight? Of course not. But the admin pulled the plug, and that was the end of it. Thatās the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about āusers.ā There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone elseās server and hoping theyāll be benevolent forever.
Thatās the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we donāt have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one adminās decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
Iām arguing a community is possible within a prison population. And these communities are moderated yet still not owned by the prison (even if the prisoners might be, or even get executed, or punished, isolated, removed, etc).
I donāt know who is saying social networks arenāt hieratical in nature or where that idea would come from.
Or what is wrong with that. Only in a perfect anarchy would peers moderate themselves. And most folk arenāt anarchists (in the sense they donāt want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
Iām not arguing for extremes at all.
On one side youāve got pure authoritarianismāadmins as unchecked rulers. On the other side youāve got utopian anarchyāpeers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. Iām not in either camp.
What Iām pointing out is the middle: these platforms are hierarchical by design. That means admins do hold systemic power, but it also means admins have responsibility for how that power is exercised. My stance is simply to acknowledge that reality instead of pretending hierarchy doesnāt exist.
Selective federation is part of that. Itās not about isolation or dominationāitās about setting clear boundaries for what Iām willing to host and connect with, while still participating in the broader network. Users still have choices. They can join another server or start their own. Thatās federation working as intended.
So this isnāt an extreme position. Itās the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and donāt pretend current software is something it isnāt.