Then it gets ideological
“The Internet needs more porn” is an ideology o can support
Comment on LemmyNSFW and Saidit are dead. Which Platform is next?
myrmidex@belgae.social 1 day agoThen it gets ideological rapidly. How to come to an agreement: majority vs consensus? Once a conclusion is reached, can all press the button or just one delegate? It brings so many questions.
I think it’s much more elegant to just abandon one server in favor of the other.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 day ago
anise@quokk.au 1 day ago
isn’t one person controlling a server also an ideological decision?
myrmidex@belgae.social 1 day ago
Yes, it absolutely is, but I don’t think it was ever purposefully designed that way. More like it grew out of the single root account on a server. But I could be wrong.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 1 day ago
isn’t that fine? if i don’t want to interact with marxist-leninist instance, for instance, then i don’t itneract with posts or people from there. That’s why we have instance blocking.
I thought the idea of instances is to cater to different clubs or tribes of people.
Also the ideology of a nsfw community is a straight-forward issue.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 day ago
You’d think so, but like… What about disagreements over what type of content should be allowed? Should they allow AI generated stuff? Revenge porn? Illustrated art depicting minors? Specific extreme fetishes?
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That feels like a weak argument, revenge porn is a crime, so is illustrated csam. A quick check of why someone thinks either of those should be allowed would either lead to their greater understanding of the topic or the realization that they’re not qualified to make these decisions.
Extreme fetishes could be a hard topic. Needles and blood play skeeve me the hell out, but the flow chart goes “all parties consent and enjoy -> does not incriminate host-> allowed to exist.” So it isn’t up to my skeeves to yuck someone’s yum.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 1 day ago
Not everywhere. If it’s legal where the admin lives and legal where the server is hosted, you can’t really make this argument. You could make the argument that it’s morally wrong, but like… the point is that it’s a possible point of contention, and not as cut-and-dried as you suggest.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I personally don’t think they shoukd allow any of that stuff - some of which is illegal anyway - but for the non-illegal stuff like AI nsfw, if they all agree on it they can permit it. OR if only some agree, they can create a seperate instsnce for AI nsfw.
Those are pretty much the only things they have to agree on, right?
myrmidex@belgae.social 1 day ago
What does this mean? I’m talking about how an instance should or can be governed. Poster before me indicated an instance should be managed by a community, which drags politics - thus ideology - into the conversation. It’s hard to create community governance on a platform with a single root admin. This is also the case on git repo’s in terms of governance. And when that is the case, moving away seems the only option - unless the developers feel adventurous enough to implement a whole community-as-root-account feature, where they will then run into the questions I’ve mentioned.