Meta's recent decision to allow claims of mental illness towards LGBT+ individuals on its platforms has sparked a wave of outrage. This new moderation policy...
I explained it to my friends about why I only used Reddit and now Lemmy:
I think social media attached directly to Ego is toxic and harmful. On more anonymous social media, ideas(content) at least tends to rise or fall on their own merits, rather than on the prior popularity of the individual saying them.
I’m here for cool ideas, concepts, and discussions, not popularity contests which most social media platforms are.
I don’t think anything exits on its own merit on the whole wide universe, but that is another discussion to be had.
Content here seems to rise and fall if they fit the narrative the community wants to push. I was quite active on r/collapse and it only got The doom stuff about climate change. Positive messages were filtered out. That’s just one example, but it seems to be how Lemmy works and Reddit used to work before it was invaded by bots.
I’d argue that is pushing the ego too. It’s a way to reaffirm the worldview one holds over and over. And that is, I think, a very ego driven thing, since we all strife to be right about things.
I hear what you’re saying, and yeah all communities have a narrative, I’ve been reprimanded on L/climate for the exact opposite, questioning where all the unearned optimism was coming from.
But the format is topics, and you do need to fit the topics, so I get it based on the community. That said, what I cannot stand is someone’s opinion being elevated on the basis of them being a celebrity, or an influencer. I prefer not to consume content through the prism of knowing of the person who said it. If Kim Kardashian has something she thinks is clever to say, let her say it without her name behind it to see if it sinks or swims on whether people read the comment and found it clever/relevant/worth propagating with an upvote or not.
I explained it to my friends about why I only used Reddit and now Lemmy:
I think social media attached directly to Ego is toxic and harmful. On more anonymous social media, ideas(content) at least tends to rise or fall on their own merits, rather than on the prior popularity of the individual saying them.
I’m here for cool ideas, concepts, and discussions, not popularity contests which most social media platforms are.
I don’t think anything exits on its own merit on the whole wide universe, but that is another discussion to be had.
Content here seems to rise and fall if they fit the narrative the community wants to push. I was quite active on r/collapse and it only got The doom stuff about climate change. Positive messages were filtered out. That’s just one example, but it seems to be how Lemmy works and Reddit used to work before it was invaded by bots.
I’d argue that is pushing the ego too. It’s a way to reaffirm the worldview one holds over and over. And that is, I think, a very ego driven thing, since we all strife to be right about things.
I hear what you’re saying, and yeah all communities have a narrative, I’ve been reprimanded on L/climate for the exact opposite, questioning where all the unearned optimism was coming from.
But the format is topics, and you do need to fit the topics, so I get it based on the community. That said, what I cannot stand is someone’s opinion being elevated on the basis of them being a celebrity, or an influencer. I prefer not to consume content through the prism of knowing of the person who said it. If Kim Kardashian has something she thinks is clever to say, let her say it without her name behind it to see if it sinks or swims on whether people read the comment and found it clever/relevant/worth propagating with an upvote or not.