Quadruple moderation is killing Lemmy. It’s a gift to Reddit
There’s a rule about online communities I want people here to understand: the 90-9-1 rule.
Roughly 90% lurk, 9% comment, and 1% create.
Additionally - lemmy monthly active users is stangant at about 35k monthly active and not improving:
https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/stats
When I first got to Lemmy, I had trouble finding enough content I was interested in even commenting on. So I figured: why complain about the lack of content when one can start posting it myself?
That’s why I post so much.
If people don’t post, most Lemmy communities simply don’t have enough creators to sustain themselves. You need posts before lurkers can lurk, commenters can comment, and some of those people eventually become creators themselves.
I’m not posting just to flood Lemmy. I’m trying to help solve one of Lemmy’s biggest problems: not enough content creators.
And frankly, doing that has been a nightmare.
Lemmy has a quadruple-moderation problem
Every active content creator has to survive four layers:
- Community moderators can remove your posts or ban you from the community.
- Your home-instance admins can ban your entire account.
- Receiving-instance admins can block/ban you for everyone on their instance, even though you don’t belong to it.
- Public moderation history means those decisions follow you. One moderator’s decision can influence another and snowball into more moderation.
For prolific content creators, that’s brutal.
I’ve had multiple accounts banned over one or two posts that somebody didn’t like. Months of posting, comments, engagement and contributions can effectively disappear from a community because of a couple of moderation decisions.
And the more you contribute, the worse the odds become. If you make hundreds or thousands of posts, eventually you’re going to post something that one moderator somewhere doesn’t like.
You don’t need one moderation team to tolerate you. You need multiple independent moderators and admins, across multiple servers, to remain aligned indefinitely.
There’s almost no cost to deleting a creator
This is another major difference from Reddit.
There is generally no financial investment in a Lemmy community’s content. A volunteer moderator can ban someone who contributed months of posts and comments and lose all of that person’s past and future contributions without losing revenue, salary or investment. Did you know all creator posts are wiped out from lemmy after account banned?
The creator paid the cost in time.
The community loses the content.
The users lose something to read and discuss.
And the moderator who pushed the button may personally lose essentially nothing.
So who benefits from making prolific content creation this difficult?
Because it certainly isn’t Lemmy.
And this creates an enormous attack surface
I genuinely have trouble believing that everyone complaining about prolific posters simply doesn’t understand this dynamic. At some point I have to question whether some of it is deliberate.
If I were Reddit and wanted to undermine a federated competitor, this is exactly where I’d attack it: its content creators.
You don’t need to hack Lemmy. You don’t need to DDoS instances. You don’t need to take anything offline.
Lemmy already provides the mechanism.
Report prolific contributors. Call their posting “spam.” accuse them of being bots. Point moderators toward their public moderation histories. Get one account banned somewhere, then let that decision influence moderators elsewhere.
Eventually the creator gets tired of fighting and leaves.
I’m not claiming I have proof Reddit is doing this. I’m saying Lemmy’s architecture makes this kind of subversion ridiculously easy, and Reddit would be an obvious beneficiary.
Reddit doesn’t have this same federated quadruple-jeopardy problem. You’re primarily dealing with the moderation of the subreddit you’re contributing to.
Lemmy desperately needs more people creating content, yet its moderation structure makes life progressively harder for the people who create the most of it.
At some point we should be asking:
Who actually benefits from that?
A plea to admins: protect your creators ban reddit agents instead
Before banning someone, look at who is contributing and who is reporting.
If an account with zero posts in years reports someone who has contributed hundreds of posts, don’t treat those two users as equally valuable to the health of the community.
That doesn’t put creators above the rules. Remove bad posts. Warn people. Moderate proportionally.
But stop throwing away months of content and future contributions over one or two posts someone disliked.
Creating content takes time. Reporting takes seconds.
Protect the people actually building your communities.
edit: I am reposting from reddit - there is no rules against that. its actually great thing for majority of lemmy users!
This reposting tool is open source - i’ve never been hiding the fact im reposting from reddit.
people get only high quality pre-dozed, pre-moderated content.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lemmy-deep-lighthouse/
I think more people should be using similar tools and populate lemmy with content. - htis is the only way to move that 35k mau number and creat conditions for more OC on lemmy
edit 2 " but we dont want content" argument.
The fuck you dont. who the fuck is we?
And this is why I don’t buy the argument that the people still here represent what users want.
Look at the numbers.
- Fediverse: ~14 million registered, ~1.17 million MAU.
- Lemmy: ~756,000 registered, ~35,000 MAU.
Lemmy has had three quarters of a million accounts created and only about 4.6% of that number is active monthly.
Obviously that doesn’t mean 95% were all regular users who quit. But it does tell us something important: the people currently active are a tiny, self-selected fraction of everyone who has tried this platform.
So when 30 existing users say “WE don’t want more content,” you’re hearing from the people the current system successfully retained. You’re not hearing from the enormous number of people who tried Lemmy and aren’t here anymore.
Maybe instead of assuming the remaining users have figured out what Lemmy should be, we should be asking why so many people tried it and didn’t stick around.


But this completely ignores the other 90%. honestly - this is to my point - Icant believe so many people are so ignorant, god help you in life if you are not an agent.
You’re looking at a post with zero comments and concluding “nobody engaged.” You have no idea how many people read it, clicked the article, watched the video, voted, or simply enjoyed seeing it.
That’s what lurkers do. They lurk.
And there’s a pretty obvious contradiction in saying “don’t post, comment instead.” Comment on what? Someone still has to supply the posts that start those discussions.
Yes, 20 great posts with active discussion are better than 2,000 garbage posts. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But an empty community doesn’t magically produce great conversations because we nobly refused to post anything until somebody had an original thought.
Posts create opportunities for discussion. Comments create community. You need both.
And who are you who are so wise in the ways of lurkers? You don’t know what they want either. I know what I want though.
OK genius, how many posts were there on Lemmy yesterday, not including yours? How many of your posts did you comment on, other than to defend your spam?
The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of taking part in a conspiracy should tell us everything we need to know, and it’s why you won’t be hearing from me again after this.
The unstated logic here is simply that you cannot think of a reason why someone would disagree on this except if they were engaging in some kind of secret skullduggery. That’s a lack of imagination on your part. You need to spend some time - away from the keyboard, I mean - actually thinking about why such a great weight of people (all of whom seem to be quite active on Lemmy) say that you’re contributing negatively. You have no direct evidence for your current guess. Maybe you can think real hard about what those people might be thinking, even if what they think differs from what you think.
I’ve got my own guess what’s going on in your noggin, but in my experience people don’t appreciate hearing such guesses so I’ll keep it to myself.
In the meantime, because that thought process, if you do engage with it, will take actual time (like, months), here’s my advice: limit yourself to posting one post from other social media per day. Pick something that made you think, or made you laugh, so that you can also comment on it and start the discussion.
This is kind of incredible because you’ve submitted 3 posts in 11 months.
You’re basically demonstrating my argument for me.
You prefer commenting. Great. That’s valuable. But those comments exist because somebody else did the work of supplying something for you to comment on.
That’s the 90-9-1 dynamic I’m talking about. I’m not claiming to psychically know what every lurker wants. I’m pointing out that consumption massively outweighs contribution on social platforms, and your own posting history is a pretty great example.
And your solution is that I should limit myself to one post per day, while you contribute roughly one every four months?
If everyone followed your posting rate, this place would be a fucking archaeological site.
As for the “Reddit agent” stuff, I’ve repeatedly said I don’t think everyone who disagrees with me is an agent. I think coordinated manipulation is quite likely and Lemmy is structurally vulnerable to it. You’re free to think that’s ridiculous.
But maybe spend a little less time diagnosing what’s going on in my “noggin” and a little more time considering the irony of telling someone posting too much is killing Lemmy when you’ve posted three times in almost a year.