I don't like there being forums set to 'public' on open platforms that then say if you aren't in a specific demographic then you aren't allowed to comment.
-
So do I? It’s very easy to view the sidebar of a community. It’s a good way to get to know them and understand what unique rules they might have.
I'm actually curious, do you use the browser version or a Lemmy app? I'm on Boost and I would have to click into the community if I wanted to see anything more than its name and instance.
-
I'm actually curious, do you use the browser version or a Lemmy app? I'm on Boost and I would have to click into the community if I wanted to see anything more than its name and instance.
I use Voyager and you do have to tap into the community and then I think View Sidebar is an option in another menu
-
It's not just targeted at that group, it's supposedly meant only for that group to be able to participate, so it should be set to private in the community settings. Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
I view plenty of communities I don't post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I'd still find the discussions interesting. People don't need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
-
Guess what? If you accidentally break the rules, the mods will helpfully remove the comment and send you a polite reminder! You won't even lose karma over it because there is no karma! At worst you'll experience something women often do in real life: having your voice dismissed.
"Having your voice dismissed due to your gender is wrong."
dismisses your voice due to your gender
I hope that's not a reason they actually give, because it's incredibly hypocritical.
-
if you don’t want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno…limit visibility?
It's not on the community to make it harder for their target audience to find them. It's on people who scroll the All feed to leave posts alone that don't concern them.
If the post is in all it's in the public forum You don't get to have your safe space in the public forum. If you say something in public then be prepared. If you want to reach the public because of higher traffic does not mean you can tell people not to respond. I know that people will argue that it's not fair but it gives off sealioning, im not touching you vibes.
-
I view plenty of communities I don't post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I'd still find the discussions interesting. People don't need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
That's your choice. It's a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community's choice, not yours).
-
That's your choice. It's a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community's choice, not yours).
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is "toxic?"
I'd have a hard time thinking of any group I'm a part of that doesn't have rules around who can participate. That's a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it's been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they're excluding.
-
Or you could just read and respect the community rules.
Or that forum can just respect the guidelines of Lemmy private/public settings.
And I'm no more worked up about this than you are.
Or that forum can just respect the guidelines of Lemmy private/public settings.
You should send the mods an email.
And I’m no more worked up about this than you are.
{looks at rest of thread] Suuure.
-
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is "toxic?"
I'd have a hard time thinking of any group I'm a part of that doesn't have rules around who can participate. That's a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it's been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they're excluding.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn't you call those communities toxic?
any group I'm a part of that doesn't have rules around who can participate.
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they're excluding.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don't have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to.
To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people's opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).or do you think anything that excludes you is "toxic?"
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don't like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don't participate in their communities.
-
The sidebar also says "this is an inclusive community" followed by a rule that excludes 50% of the planet.
Inclusive of what counts as "woman" and what's a valid topic. Come on
-
Seriously, that's your retort? Ok fine, I'll rephrase.
It literally requires about half of every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires about half of every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. About half of everyone who comes here has to do that, for about half of every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
And let's be honest male users are way more than half
-
if you don’t want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno…limit visibility?
It's not on the community to make it harder for their target audience to find them. It's on people who scroll the All feed to leave posts alone that don't concern them.
I don't see a problem with being public and having limiting rules - it's perfectly fine for women or minority groups to have their own spaces - but never before have I seen such an odd approach to moderating. I too tumbled on one of their threads from ALL and it felt like at least third of the comments there was responded with, paraphrasing, "please never post again". If every discussion reaching ALL gets like that, I'd imagine it would be easier to figure out some other solution, since it takes such insane amount of effort to go through so many comments and probably profiles and posting history to know who to reply that to, from moderating perspective. Or are they just saying that to everyone? Or everyone not subbed?? I doubt that many people getting answered with "please never post again" would want to join even if they did qualify...
It's just... I don't understand the logistics of all that
-
Lemmy has the ability to set who can create Posts within a community, and there are a lot that only allow the mods to create Posts.
Trying to do the same for comments would require a lot more complexity unless comments were tied to subscriptions. Even then it wouldn't cover the situation of people wanting to subscribe without being eligible to comment.
To be clear, I do think WomensStuff women only rule is 100% perfectly fine for various reasons and the limitations of the software are the issue.
wrote last edited by [email protected]i agree with this, but would like to point out:
if the software can't do what you want it to do...you need to use a different software.
from what i can tell about the community, they really want to be a discord server, but on lemmy.....why not just use discord in the first place then?
faulting the general userbase for using the software exactly as intended and then getting mad about it seems...really toxic...and intentionally combative.
-
It’s an extremely simple request that literally requires zero work to honor. There is no downside. Keeping it open and easy to find means higher engagement for the community and greater visibility on a safe, inclusive space for women. Feels like an easy w to me.
It requires a change to the whole flow of interaction actually. No other public community requires you to check the rules to see if you're allowed to post at all.
-
I guess you haven’t ever used lemmy on a phone or in a narrow window on PC where it is hidden until you click a button to show the sidebar?
I'm grown up enough to just use the Subscribed feed, so I don't even get posts not targeted at me, and I also am fully able to look up the rules from mobile devices. If that's such a hassle for you, you're unsuited for federated platforms where you have to accept to encounter a plethora of rules and posts not targeted at you.
starts losing the argument
calls the other person a child
-
When I click on a post out of the All or Subscribed feed I don’t go to the main community page.
It's literally the topmost rule of the sidebar. If your client doesn't display the sidebar properly, that's on you and your choice of client. Default lemmy-ui displays it just fine.
Not on mobile
-
Bro is absolutely sick to his stomach and vomiting that this one community isn’t specifically designed for him and that people might have to * gulp * read the sidebar.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Paint it however you want, you cannot change the landscape. If you can only win by imagining your opponent this way, you've already lost. Your presence is not enjoyable nor necessary.
-
Or that forum can just respect the guidelines of Lemmy private/public settings.
You should send the mods an email.
And I’m no more worked up about this than you are.
{looks at rest of thread] Suuure.
Beacon has been calm and helpful and has suggested solutions to the problem (the only commenter I've seen do that consistently). You immediately jumped to making lazy snide remarks and dismissing people. I think I know who's more worked up here.
-
i agree with this, but would like to point out:
if the software can't do what you want it to do...you need to use a different software.
from what i can tell about the community, they really want to be a discord server, but on lemmy.....why not just use discord in the first place then?
faulting the general userbase for using the software exactly as intended and then getting mad about it seems...really toxic...and intentionally combative.
The software could be changed to facilitate what they want to do, it isn't like the core design couldn't handle a feature where people could only comment if they were specifically granted permissions for the community. There could even be permissions on who can vote, like restricting to people who are subscribed and whatnot. The fact that it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't work for the intended purpose.
The reason for being in the fediverse is visibility, same as most other communities.
The underlying issue is one of visibility, and making it more visible could also attract unwanted attention. For example, they could address people like myself who can't keep track of all the community specific rules by changing their name to something like "WomensStuff (no men)" but that would probably prompt people who would otherwise ignore or block the community to go make a fuss like they are in this post.
They could clarify the reason for the rule, although that does make the rules longer. For example they could include something about the intent being to have discussions from women's perspectives without them being drowned out when limiting who can comment.
-
The software could be changed to facilitate what they want to do, it isn't like the core design couldn't handle a feature where people could only comment if they were specifically granted permissions for the community. There could even be permissions on who can vote, like restricting to people who are subscribed and whatnot. The fact that it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't work for the intended purpose.
The reason for being in the fediverse is visibility, same as most other communities.
The underlying issue is one of visibility, and making it more visible could also attract unwanted attention. For example, they could address people like myself who can't keep track of all the community specific rules by changing their name to something like "WomensStuff (no men)" but that would probably prompt people who would otherwise ignore or block the community to go make a fuss like they are in this post.
They could clarify the reason for the rule, although that does make the rules longer. For example they could include something about the intent being to have discussions from women's perspectives without them being drowned out when limiting who can comment.
wrote last edited by [email protected]the point I'm making is:
the software doesn't do what they want right now.
future development doesn't mean anything in this context, but by all means, open a feature request; I'm sure plenty of communities would welcome features like that!
the problem is the disregard for the design of the platform.
it doesn't do what they want now, and they need to conform to how the platform works now.
public means public. private means private.
those settings exist for a reason.
if visibility is such a concern, make two communities:
one that is public and allows anyone to participate, and one that is private, invite only.
that last one is obviously what they have tried to recreate here, and it's not how the platform generally works.
in a traditional forum, this isn't really an issue, since you'd just have a designated board, clearly separate from others. only lemmy is not a traditional forum. it doesn't have this separation.
anything that shows up on all is supposed to be fair game for everyone.
if you don't want that, don't make it show up in all.
i really don't care if it's a womens only, or mens only, or canadians only community. the public feed is not the place for that, and with the current state of the software (which is the only thing of relevance here) what this community wants is not possible.
so either:
- find a workaround (that doesn't annoy the general userbase)
- contribute to a technical solution (it is a public repo after all)
- use software that actually has the feature you want.
annoying users is generally bad Netiquette. this bad Netiquette is the issue at hand.
not the desire for a designated womens space. i haven't seen anyone in the thread lamenting that.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use.
it's not the people pointing out the existence of a designated bbq area that are wrong!
it's the people ignoring the signs that say "please use the designated area for your bbqs" that are wrong.
