“If you’ve ever hosted a potluck and none of the guests were spouting antisemitic and/or authoritarian talking points, congratulations! You’ve achieved what some of the most valuable companies in the world claim is impossible.”

    • gullible@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There is one complaint that I have about the mods across Lemmy, they seem to be hesitant to crack down on trolling. This has, in turn, made trolling easy thanks to the audience Lemmy attracted. Love the mods here, but when someone calls out a troll, maybe don’t remove the comment calling out the troll and leave the troll alone to continue trolling. Your contribution is actively negative if you do this.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Damn, I thought I was the only person who noticed this. It’s just like being in elementary school all over again. The bullies run rampant, but any time anyone stands up to the bullies, they get in trouble while the adults (mods) ignore the various abuses the bully gets away with regularly.

        Life never really changes, does it?

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s the same groupthink that happened on reddit. Someone says something incidiary, another responds, and depending on the slant of the community, people dog pile. Same shit happens, as you said, in life.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    They claim it’s impossible because they don’t want to lose market share.

    They didn’t start treating women, black people, LGBT people, the disabled, and countless other minorities as human beings because they thought all human life has intrinsic value, they started treating them like humans because they realized they were leaving money on the table. They realized their profits could be even bigger if they hired people from these groups and aimed advertising at them, they could have everyone’s money, not just white people’s money.

    Now that the real “silent majority” aren’t a bunch of backwards fucking racists, companies try to act like they give a shit about various minority groups while really only caring to get the profits they can extract from those communities.

    They understand that when they lose customers, those customers turn to other services to spend their money, with right wingers and white supremacists and authoritarians, that’s running off to places like TruthSocial and Xitter.

    This is the same thing, they don’t value the lives of white supremacists, they value the money in their pockets, and as long as those people have money to spend, they will find excuses to keep taking their money.

    The Fediverse easily sidesteps this problem by being volunteer and donation-based, meaning nobody is currently using it to sell to the biggest markets available.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      The CEO of the company I used to work, used to say every time they talked about the inclusivity initiatives that they were not doing them because it was the moral thing to do, but because it was the thing that brings more returns to the company. Always found rare that he was so honest with that.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        In general they are the same thing. In the broadest terms, what’s seen as moral is what society as a whole approves. By definition, some are early adopters and some are late adopters.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yep, it’s really as simple as “Why have a handful of markets, when we can have all the markets.” It’s so odd how it’s a combination of abject greed and total disdain for things like inclusivity, but they back it because money.

  • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’m so sorry to all the thoughtless Fanboys out here, but this is such a disingenuous fluff piece it doesn’t even deserve discussion

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Corporations don’t aggressively moderate and ban Nazis on their platforms because it would measurably negative affect their MAU stats, which is one of the primary metrics social media corps report on how “good” (read: profitable) their social network platform is.

    Meta et al. will NEVER intentionally remove users that push engagement numbers up (regardless of how or what topics are being engaged) unless:

    • they determine it’s more profitable/less harmful to their business to do so
    • they are forced to by a court order
  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Those already in economic power have gained enough means to manipulate the rules and Fascism is more profitable for people already in power than even ‘normal’ capitalism is. This was basically preordained for as long as profit uber alles.

  • weirdwallace75@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s plenty of Nazis in the Fediverse, just not on any instances your instances are federated with.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        On the one hand yes, on the other hand that means the Fediverse is involuntarily providing those freaks their own Fedi-Truth-Social.

        • notapantsday@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’ll never be able to keep these people from talking to each other, but you can quarantine them in their own little circles where they cause as little damage as possible to the outside world.

          • Square Singer@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hopefully… Recent developments look more like they are using unmoderated social media to radicalize themselves and plan real shit.

            • notapantsday@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, even in small groups they can do absolutely horrible things, as they have done in the past. But that doesn’t really change if we allow them to have a bigger audience. And in the end, it’s also a numbers game. In a group of 100 fascists, the chance of encountering someone who is both motivated and capable of causing major harm to society is smaller than in a group of 10,000.

  • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think its a numbers game. If fediverse had the numbers it would be plagued with all the same issues. But its a little fish in a big pond.

    • JustinHanagan@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      If a Fediverse instance grew so big that it couldn’t moderate itself and had a lot of spam/Nazis, presumably other instances would just defederate, yeah? Unless an instance is ad-supported, what’s the incentive to grow beyond one’s ability to stay under control?

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Any community that welcomes bigots is truly welcoming only to bigots.

    Any civility rule that is enforced with greater priority than (or in the absence of) a “no bigotry” rule serves only to protect bigots from decent people.

    Bigots already have too many places where they are welcome and protected. I’m glad that lemmy (with the exception of certain instances that are largely defederated) has not fallen into the trap that defines too much of social media.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you’ve ever hosted a potluck and none of the guests were shilling junk products, congratulations! You’ve achieved what some of the most valuable companies in the world claim is impossible.

    Nobody thinks big tech companies are OK with spammers just because their moderation of spam is imperfect. At the very least, they want people shilling junk on their platforms to pay for ads, yet none of the big platforms are spam-free. Federated systems aren’t inherently immune to abuse; email spam is the original spam.

    Everybody with some crap to push, whether it’s commercial spam or Nazi ideology has reason to look for the biggest audience with the least effort. Most of them aren’t going to waste their efforts targeting Mastodon, Lemmy, Matrix or the like right now. I fear if these federated systems do grow popular enough the existing moderation tools will be woefully inadequate and most servers will switch to a whitelist model.