Comment on Suggestion: asking for the community's thoughts before defederating with an instance
Axiochus@lemmy.world 1 year agoI mean, they’re voicing a position, much like you do. It’s important to not just have ‘exit’ approaches, ‘voice’ is important as a contribution to the development of a community. That doesn’t mean that an owner should be beholden to the users, but it’s perfectly fine to have dynamism and exchange in what instances are. We construct them collectively, and over time.
Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree. But that should be up to Ruud, not us. I have no interest in seeing any attempts at direct democracy here.
It’s not like these communities are even remotely secure. We should remember full well that there are plenty of people out there that want the Fediverse project to fail. Strongly enough to perform attacks. They are certainly attempting more conventional trolling techniques, that should be a given, as its also an effective way to harm a community. From within.
No conversation on here is exclusively people that want Lemmy to succeed, and thus cannot be fully trusted. Ruud, on the other hand, has managed to earn my trust so far with his financial disclosures and open communication style.
4am@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ok
Ok, so you actually don’t
Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They said the owner should not be beholden to the users. I feel we are overall in agreement.
I’m not against dialogue and conversation. Just against the expectation it should have any kind of power over him. That’s all.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Voting is literally the heart of the platform.
But more importantly no one is asking for direct democracy. They’re asking the leadership to have a code and abide by it if they’re going to be the person running the largest instance, and if they can’t do that, then Lemmy as platform has some issues it needs to iron out because communities will get locked into instances as time goes on.