What's lemmy's governance system?
-
There are a couple of governance systems in the world. Parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, anarcho syndicalism, etc.
With its decentralized nature, mostly free movement between communities and instances, which governance system would be closest?
The situation of international anarchy in which individual states exist. Except there's nobody dying in wars on Lemmy. And not even anyone dying indirectly yet, as far as I can tell, although any time you let people talk to each other there's a continual risk of it happening.
-
The situation of international anarchy in which individual states exist. Except there's nobody dying in wars on Lemmy. And not even anyone dying indirectly yet, as far as I can tell, although any time you let people talk to each other there's a continual risk of it happening.
The kid who blew up a fertility clinic (and himself) in Palm Springs was a moderator of [email protected], for what that's worth. Not a war, and the only fatality ended up being himself, but definitely an act of violence with an intent to kill that was connected to a specific community on this platform.
-
The kid who blew up a fertility clinic (and himself) in Palm Springs was a moderator of [email protected], for what that's worth. Not a war, and the only fatality ended up being himself, but definitely an act of violence with an intent to kill that was connected to a specific community on this platform.
Oh really? I didn't know that. Okay, never mind. But, like I said, it was inevitable.
Yep, giving it a quick look, that definitely does look like the account of a deeply miserable person.
-
There are a couple of governance systems in the world. Parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, anarcho syndicalism, etc.
With its decentralized nature, mostly free movement between communities and instances, which governance system would be closest?
Autocratic city-states.
-
Autocratic city-states.
Okay. I think I disagree because autocrats let others work. It would be rule of the workers I think because those who build and maintain the instances and communities are in charge of maintaining them while the other "workers" who produce the content for everyones benefit are not in charge of the rules but are free to access the content at any time. I think as a word I would probably use socialist-syndicalism.
-
Okay. I think I disagree because autocrats let others work. It would be rule of the workers I think because those who build and maintain the instances and communities are in charge of maintaining them while the other "workers" who produce the content for everyones benefit are not in charge of the rules but are free to access the content at any time. I think as a word I would probably use socialist-syndicalism.
Some instances let others work as mods, or even with some admin privileges. However, at the end of the day, each instance is beholden to the head admin unless they were set up differently. The only instance I can think of with an organizational structure beyond autocracy is beehaw.
You're also trying to insert economic descriptions to a political system without economics.
-
Some instances let others work as mods, or even with some admin privileges. However, at the end of the day, each instance is beholden to the head admin unless they were set up differently. The only instance I can think of with an organizational structure beyond autocracy is beehaw.
You're also trying to insert economic descriptions to a political system without economics.
interesting! Thanks for pointing that out. I did not mean to insert anything.
My point was that the mutual benefit imo is kinda economic, no? Making content is a job, content is a commodity. Just because no money flows does not mean there is no economy, or?
Well, the admin has to work, the moderators have to work. Thats a fact. i know that because i am both. its a lot of work if you want to do it right. yes, both make rules, hence hierarchy.
-
interesting! Thanks for pointing that out. I did not mean to insert anything.
My point was that the mutual benefit imo is kinda economic, no? Making content is a job, content is a commodity. Just because no money flows does not mean there is no economy, or?
Well, the admin has to work, the moderators have to work. Thats a fact. i know that because i am both. its a lot of work if you want to do it right. yes, both make rules, hence hierarchy.
Part of the reason why I'm arguing against economic terms is because it doesn't really give context into the power dynamics in how an instance is run. At the core of most instances on Lemmy, a head admin dictates the rules of their instance and it is take it or leave it for everyone else that wants to participate.
Think of it like this, if the head admin wanted to make a decision against all other admins and mods, what would happen? Likely, which has happened previously to other instances on Lemmy, the head admin wins out and everyone else either conforms or has to leave. Labor doesn't become ownership.
Unless an instance has a corporate structure which distributes power, it is an autocracy by definition.
-
Part of the reason why I'm arguing against economic terms is because it doesn't really give context into the power dynamics in how an instance is run. At the core of most instances on Lemmy, a head admin dictates the rules of their instance and it is take it or leave it for everyone else that wants to participate.
Think of it like this, if the head admin wanted to make a decision against all other admins and mods, what would happen? Likely, which has happened previously to other instances on Lemmy, the head admin wins out and everyone else either conforms or has to leave. Labor doesn't become ownership.
Unless an instance has a corporate structure which distributes power, it is an autocracy by definition.
The big difference here is freedom of association. In the real world, your life depends on being accepted into that group or migrating to another place while having huge losses and problems due to it later on.
I'm not sure i agree because an admin can also be protested against and they can share ownership (i did that as well). Its not as black and white imo.
-
The big difference here is freedom of association. In the real world, your life depends on being accepted into that group or migrating to another place while having huge losses and problems due to it later on.
I'm not sure i agree because an admin can also be protested against and they can share ownership (i did that as well). Its not as black and white imo.
In the real world, your life depends on being accepted into that group or migrating to another place while having huge losses and problems due to it later on.
Just because the punishment isn't as strong doesn't mean that the system functions differently. You are also going to run into issues where established communities may have issues moving.
I'm not sure i agree because an admin can also be protested against and they can share ownership
But that isn't baked into Lemmy. That is a decision you made outside of Lemmy. Even then, is there a case where your instance could run without you? If not, you are still acting as an enlightened dictator.
