It doesn’t matter if the most upvoted comment is pro or against subject in discussion. All that matters is bolstering a comment that is minimally compatible with participant’s thinking and making it win against the opposite argument (competing and most voted one).
So it seems that the most satisfactory comment (for most readers) doesn’t really matter at all. What matters, before anything else, is visibility of an opinion that somewhat aligns with one’s thinking, rather than writing or finding the most corresponding comment for that subject, fully compatible with reader’s perception.
I forgot to add, when admins of an instance say stuff like “In my opinion, this is an extraordinarily dumb act by the beehaw instance owners. It’s worse for beehaw users than for us, and will likely result in many beehaw users leaving that instance. They said in their post that this is a nuke, but I don’t think they fully assessed the blast area. Based on their post, I don’t think they fully understand what defederation does” in their formal statements, it doesn’t exactly feel like an invitation to a conversation that is grounded in mutual respect. They called them “dumb” (yes they said a “dumb act” but come on we know it means “you’re being dumb”) and called them ignorant of how the fediverse works because they can’t even entertain the notion that maybe they have a reason for their decision.
Sometimes software developers and network admins are a bit blunt when expressing their opinion. The thought behind that is: What really matters are facts and right and wrong, not feelings. Because those people sometimes are nerds. They care about software, and how to solve technical problems. Not so much about emotions and other people who have a different way of thinking. This can be everything from problematic to a legitimite way to express their feelings. I think it is warranted in this case. The decision affects many people and is a hassle for many admins and mods. They are entitled to express that they do not agree and think it is not sustainable/dumb from their perspective.
Sure we can see the root of the disagreement here. Neither side agrees with how the other side does things. The beehaw admins phrase this nicely and have kind words, but actually pull the trigger to the defederation nuke. The lemmyworld admins phrase things bluntly and not nice at all, but on the other hand they don’t actually do anything bad. Just talk. And they might be frustrated, because this is specifically directed at them and their idea of establishing a healthy community.
I understand that but if you’re pitching “the admins need to sit down and hash it out” then the fact that one group just proclaimed “not only are they dumb but they don’t even know how fediverse works” is incredibly germain the conversation. Being blunt doesn’t give someone a pass if they sound condescending/dismissive. They just sound condescending and dismissive. Being an “engineer” doesn’t excuse one from using basic social etiquette.
All I saw was a team expressing zero interest in trying to understand what happened.
I don’t think anyone will be able to hash anything out. It is a fundamentally different way of approaching things.
Beehaw wants to be a safe-space with strict rules. They dont want fast growth and do not want open registrations.
The other instances want to provide (many) new users with accounts. They give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually misbehave. Even if it means more effort for their moderators.
There is no compromise. I think we need to split the network. Or beehaw needs to disable federation altogether and be done with it. There might be a technical solution with something like Pleroma’s Message Rewrite Facility (MRF) but at this point we don’t have super fine controls on lemmy (yet).
I’m not sure if I’d like to excuse any way of talking. I like that direct way of talking. They attacked a decision, not any person. I also like to say whatever i want while solving problems, without any complicated social etiquette or putting additional effort in social interactions. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes somebody else tells me I made a bad descision. I can handle that. I just think being blunt, overstepping a bit or being allowed to vent is a healty way of dealing with human emotions. (If you only do it every now and then and within strict boundaries. We still want a positive culture of dealing with errors/failure and a constructive way of dealing with hurdles.)
But sure. I don’t get to decide how you (or the beehaw admins) like to be addressed. And what I said is only true for limited things. I don’t like attacking people or yelling at people. That’s not okay. But they didn’t do that.
I believe everyone’s goal here is the same: To provide people with a platform they like. It’s just people like different things and different ways to interact. And some just don’t go well with others.
I’d agree with that except they are doing it as a public-facing “official” statement, which generally should be a bit more “professional” in tone IMO. I would certainly describe it as an attack. At its more charitable it was just incredibly passive aggressive and unnecessary. You can say “we believe this is a mistake” without accusing people of being ignorant.
I agree. And i don’t know if the admins talked to each other or just pulled the trigger and/or issued statements. I don’t know the whole story and I shouldn’t judge.
In the end it’s just sad that our small federated world needs to be split up into even smaller chunks. I don’t think this is healthy. But i don’t have any solution to offer.
I guess it worries me less because it’s certainly not the norm and users can still “travel freely” while those who only want to be on beehaw now have a default experience slightly more catered to their values. It just doesn’t seem to have any major tangible cons.