It appears to me that the current state of Lemmy is similar to other platforms when they were smaller and more insular, and that insularity is somewhat protecting it.
I browse Lemmy, and it feels a bit like other platforms did back in 2009, before they became overwhelmed and enshitified.
If I understand it correctly, Lemmy has a similar “landed gentry” moderation scheme, where the first to create a community control it. This was easily exploited on other platforms, particularly in regards to astroturfing, censorship, and controlling a narrative.
If/when Lemmy starts to experience its own “eternal September”, what protections are in place to ensure we will not be overwhelmed and exploited?
I agree, but the server owner imposing unpopular rules is not one of the two problems the OP asks about. Those are:
- The first to create a community control it. This was easily exploited on other platforms, particularly in regards to astroturfing, censorship, and controlling a narrative.
- If/when Lemmy starts to experience its own “eternal September”, what protections are in place to ensure we will not be overwhelmed and exploited?
Decentralization with federated servers does not address those problems.
The first to create a community control it.
If the community becomes toxic, its easy to create an identically named community on another instance. A perfect example: when I joined lemmy I subscribed to the “news” community on lemmy.ml. When I saw how it was run, I unsubscribed and instead subscribed to “news” on lemmy.world.
censorship,
Modlog documents all actions including moderator censorship. Nothing like that exists at reddit. If there is censorship happening, its in full view of the users on lemmy.
and controlling a narrative.
Again Modlog, if a moderator is removing dissenting opinion.
If/when Lemmy starts to experience its own “eternal September”, what protections are in place to ensure we will not be overwhelmed and exploited?
Beehaw is an example of a Lemmy instance immune to “Eternal September”. They disabled their easy signups, and defederated from instances that allow easy signups. I don’t particularly agree with their extreme approach, but its what was important to them and it was effective. This is a powerful use of Lemmy and the Fediverse.
its easy to create an identically named community on another instance
It’s easy to create a differently named community on systems that don’t have this sort of server-based namespacing.
Modlog documents all actions including moderator censorship.
The part that’s missing is the original content mods removed. If I’m an abusive moderator and I want to censor someone, I’m not going to put “I don’t like your opinion” in the removal/ban reason; I’m going to put something that sounds reasonable like “racism” or “harassment”.
Beehaw is an example of a Lemmy instance immune to “Eternal September”
Time will tell. Either way, that’s not a solution for Lemmy as a whole.
It’s easy to create a differently named community on systems that don’t have this sort of server-based namespacing.
I’m not understanding your point here. Can you reword it perhaps?
The part that’s missing is the original content mods removed. If I’m an abusive moderator and I want to censor someone, I’m not going to put “I don’t like your opinion” in the removal/ban reason; I’m going to put something that sounds reasonable like “racism” or “harassment”.
The modlog entries I’ve read show the offending comment as well as the moderator given reason for a ban. If I see something that isn’t racism being labeled as racism, I’d suspect the community was corrupt. I do get curious when I see a banned comment from a moderator. 95% of the time I agree with the moderator’s decision.
Time will tell. Either way, that’s not a solution for Lemmy as a whole.
If you’re saying there isn’t a single solution for the entirety of Lemmy (or the Fediverse for that matter) I’ll agree with you. Where I’ll disagree with you that one has to exist or Lemmy will fail. With each instance having its own control we’ll see multiple approaches that suit each group of users.
