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.
-
You'll never get anywhere near the level of interaction making an approved list. it's a level of trust you have in the platform to respect their safe space. And hey, I blocked them on the third post I saw, so if you're that bothered it might be a you-problem.
The point of forums is to make a place you'd wanna visit. If enough people want to visit that same place it's one worth having.
-
edit: comment was made with different content in the parent comment.
no, that is very much different.
pie recipes on FuckCars get deleted because of their content, not because of who posted them.
rules are supposed to be for content.
this constitutes a misuse of the rule system.
I revised my example to fit the park setting, but not fast enough. Can you see if that makes more sense?
The software limitation signage is that the signage is hard to see.
-
I revised my example to fit the park setting, but not fast enough. Can you see if that makes more sense?
The software limitation signage is that the signage is hard to see.
i mean, kind of? not really?
the park is all of lemmy. WomensStuff doesn't own all of lemmy, so that doesn't really fit with the metaphor.
more accurate would be, if a small group marched into the park, staked off a section right in the middle, put up a little sign they made themselves, and declared this to be a competition area. all without any coordination with park authorities, without any permits, and with no prior warning to the general community.
it's simply rude. that's really what it boils down to.
lemmy is public by default. that's the entire point. so declaring that this specific patch lemmy (or grass to keep with the metaphor) suddenly isn't public anymore, is at least rude.
it's just not how public spaces work.
i want to reiterate here, that, again, i totally understand why women want a space just for them.
it's that using the rules instead of any number of other enforcement mechanism is really, really not how things are done around here. that's why it is considered so rude by so many other users.
it breaks the unspoken rules of the platform.
-
i mean, kind of? not really?
the park is all of lemmy. WomensStuff doesn't own all of lemmy, so that doesn't really fit with the metaphor.
more accurate would be, if a small group marched into the park, staked off a section right in the middle, put up a little sign they made themselves, and declared this to be a competition area. all without any coordination with park authorities, without any permits, and with no prior warning to the general community.
it's simply rude. that's really what it boils down to.
lemmy is public by default. that's the entire point. so declaring that this specific patch lemmy (or grass to keep with the metaphor) suddenly isn't public anymore, is at least rude.
it's just not how public spaces work.
i want to reiterate here, that, again, i totally understand why women want a space just for them.
it's that using the rules instead of any number of other enforcement mechanism is really, really not how things are done around here. that's why it is considered so rude by so many other users.
it breaks the unspoken rules of the platform.
The instances are the park authorities and the communities are their permits. They didn't just stake off a part of the park without that structure in place.
If a park has a camp going on, limited by age, they don't let people who are not signed up to participate in the camp.
You can still use the rest of the park when the camp is going on and the BBQ competition is going, but they still have some restrictions even in a public setting.
Honestly I'm not sure how limiting who can participate is significantly different from what and how discussions are restricted in communities. The only argument against it that I can see is that it is based on gender, and that simply isn't a black and white issue.
-
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.
That wasn't thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn't referring to technical communities and it's strange you would assume that. There's a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn't make exclusivity toxic. Weird you're comparing a women's only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don't feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don't understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don't know what other comparison to make.
-
The instances are the park authorities and the communities are their permits. They didn't just stake off a part of the park without that structure in place.
If a park has a camp going on, limited by age, they don't let people who are not signed up to participate in the camp.
You can still use the rest of the park when the camp is going on and the BBQ competition is going, but they still have some restrictions even in a public setting.
Honestly I'm not sure how limiting who can participate is significantly different from what and how discussions are restricted in communities. The only argument against it that I can see is that it is based on gender, and that simply isn't a black and white issue.
okay, put it a different way:
if someone's car is blocking half the sidewalk, forcing every passerby to walk around...is that made any better when they hang a little sign on it saying "please mind the car"?
they're still in the way. they could go all the way up their driveway, there's plenty of room, they just choose to make their bad parking everyone else's problem.
that's what's going on here:
they could correctly configure their community like everyone else, but they choose to make it everyone else's problem when they show up in the all feed.
and the all feed is not owned by any one instance, which is why your analogy with the authorities doesn't work. (the park analogy isn't great anyway, the driveway/sidewalk one is better, i think)
their attitude of "just block it, if you don't like it" is the very definition of making their community everybody's else's problem.
and i think that's rude and inconsiderate.
and if you can't see how it's way worse to control how who can post is much worse than what gets posted:
it's the difference between banning pride merch from your store, and banning queer people from your store.
both might be bad, but one is clearly much, MUCH worse!
-
That wasn't thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn't referring to technical communities and it's strange you would assume that. There's a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn't make exclusivity toxic. Weird you're comparing a women's only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don't feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don't understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don't know what other comparison to make.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.
I didn't assume it. I made an example using those. You said "I have no relevant knowledge or experience", and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have "relevant knowledge or experience".
There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
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.
with (paraphrasing) "there are plenty of communities I can see that I don't participate in", which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it's completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.
Which is also not what I said. I said that "harsh form of gatekeeping" is considered toxic.
Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of "make the thing private instead". I don't have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won't take it as well.
P.s.
Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions. -
okay, put it a different way:
if someone's car is blocking half the sidewalk, forcing every passerby to walk around...is that made any better when they hang a little sign on it saying "please mind the car"?
they're still in the way. they could go all the way up their driveway, there's plenty of room, they just choose to make their bad parking everyone else's problem.
that's what's going on here:
they could correctly configure their community like everyone else, but they choose to make it everyone else's problem when they show up in the all feed.
and the all feed is not owned by any one instance, which is why your analogy with the authorities doesn't work. (the park analogy isn't great anyway, the driveway/sidewalk one is better, i think)
their attitude of "just block it, if you don't like it" is the very definition of making their community everybody's else's problem.
and i think that's rude and inconsiderate.
and if you can't see how it's way worse to control how who can post is much worse than what gets posted:
it's the difference between banning pride merch from your store, and banning queer people from your store.
both might be bad, but one is clearly much, MUCH worse!
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm currently imagining you seeing a group of people talking on the sidewalk and you forcing your way into their space and insisting that you be a part of it because you saw their group existed.
That is what you are describing.
-
if that's the case nearly 100% of Lemmy is 'private' because people who break the rules get banned
-
Conflicted.
On one hand, their playground, their rules.
On other, if you don't want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno...limit visibility? Make it actual safe space?
I am good with anything and do respect their choice, just it's fun to think about.
Just make a discord at that point lmao
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]edit: I'm done here.
-
edit: I'm done here.
wrote last edited by [email protected][Sigh] Let me lay it out for the hard of thinking.
I'm not even reading your comment, you already lost lmao. Go take a break from the internet.
-
I'm currently imagining you seeing a group of people talking on the sidewalk and you forcing your way into their space and insisting that you be a part of it because you saw their group existed.
That is what you are describing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]sure, if you change absolutely everything about what i said and twisted it around into a completely different situation that has nothing to do with anything being discussed, you might have a point!
i never once said i want to be a part of it.
i never once said that their existence is a problem.
in fact i've said the opposite multiple times.
it's their insistence on being public and then getting annoyed when someone wanders in on accident, assuming entirely reasonably, that is a public space, since, you know, it IS public, that i take issue with.
i don't want to participate, and i respect their rules.
what i don't want is posts either complaining about others missing the rules and posting by mistake, and what i also don't want are posts like this one claiming that having communities which are clearly, by their own rules, private communities that are kept open to the public being somehow fine. which then necessitates idiotic spam like this very post.
you want a private corner for your group? fine, set it to private. that's exactly what that is for.
if you want to reach lots of people, keep it open. and expect people to interpret said "open" sign to actually mean open, because that is what you willfully set it to.
wanting it both ways is some serious bs...
-
Conflicted.
On one hand, their playground, their rules.
On other, if you don't want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno...limit visibility? Make it actual safe space?
I am good with anything and do respect their choice, just it's fun to think about.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I think for those types of communities having it be open but restricting commenting to flaired users that are verified makes way more sense. I’m not sure if that’s possible on Lemmy, but it’s an easy way to have the best of both worlds.
-
Jesus, guys, the rule is apparently just like the clitoris: FRONT AND CENTER BUT INVISIBLE!?!?
You just really needed to find a way to shoehorn that boomer joke in huh...
