The reason is simple: building on a server where I don’t have final control carries risk, and I don’t want to keep investing in spaces that could be removed from me at any moment.
I don’t like this look AP, just say you didn’t like being called out and leave it at that not go down this authoritarian path, makes you look even stranger in my eyes bro.
Okay, bye Felicia.
Talk about taking your toys and going home.
Bro crashed out
Bro
Bro!
Owning his own instance would probably work better for him, so removing himself from the communities where he was the sole contributor seems like a good decision.
Thank you so much for the well wishes.
For me, this really is the best path forward. Writing takes a lot of effort, and I like having full ownership of the stack where my work lives. Part of that ownership also means deciding how I want to interact with others—including having the option to de-federate if needed.
I know my approach to community management is a little different from most here. Even though I was on Reddit for 18 years, I’ve always felt somewhat anti-Reddit. My focus isn’t really on freedom of speech so much as freedom of association.
That’s why I don’t believe every community has to—or should—be open to everyone. Some people are a natural fit, and some are not—and I tend to be more careful about where I draw that line.
Good luck bro
Hope it goes well bro
Was that necessary?
Edit: for context: https://lemmy.world/post/36281965
A friendly good luck wish? yeah it was :)
Socialising, interacting, expressing ourselves? Is this place a medical journal or a research paper? Is any of this necessary? We could remove 99% of the posts as they’re not necessary. None of this stuff we’re doing here is necessary for our lives. (actually might be a detriment). Are you necessary? Am I necessary? The world would still rotate. What kind of philosophical nightmare are you trying to uncover?
Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.
He has stepped down from his mod position, which is a better outcome than 99% of the posts in this community.
Then people still come at him with this kind of comments.
IIRC, AtomicPoet has autism, the comment above is the equivalent of bullying the autist kid who struggled to understand social norms at school.
Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.
Yes, but maybe the other people don’t like being told that they’re toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can’t someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn’t agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?
I’ve got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it’s fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he’s obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It’s all good. I do feel like a lot of times this “I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it” doesn’t really go along with being willing to accede to other people’s metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they’re the mods and they’ve got the power within their community.)
Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction?
You’re joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would’ve happened in the first place.
You can still criticize someone’s beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don’t want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle
Umm, no, they aren’t. Maybe they are now, after you made the comment I’m currently replying to, but I read your earlier comment and had to go back and double-check Hansae’s comment hadn’t been edited, because your response made no sense otherwise.
Maybe I should have added a link to the previous post in the OP of this one.
The events were happening in the span of a few days, I assumed most of the people would know of the context
Ok now it makes sense why you’d ask a random guy “is that necessary”
(how come it got to this corner of the Internet everything is exhausting over here.)
Let me get this, so there’s this guy who was trying to mod multiple subreddits(or wtvr) but he has an illness/disease that is commonly known to interfere with the social dynamics?
I’ve never read an username and never will but I’m taking a break from y’all
Was it necessary to intentionally call someone bro just to poke the bear? Yes, it’s weird that they don’t like the term, yeah, but people intentionally going out of their way to call them bro is literally bullying. Yes, it’s bad that they threatened to ban people for downvoting their comments, but it doesn’t make bullying okay. If people want to fling valid criticism their way, that’s fine, but just calling someone bro when they said they don’t like it is pretty childish.
Take this comment, it is pretty clear, but doesn’t call them a name they specifically asked to not be called. https://quokk.au/comment/1473591
I would agree, but also I would say harassing people based on their voting, and threatening them, is bullying. As the saying goes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don’t want to be bullied, they shouldn’t bully. I’m in favor of taking advantage of teachable moments to reduce abuse in the long term.
That makes sense, good luck until then!
Probably a net positive for the threadiverse that he won’t be moderating communities. He seemed to take it way too seriously.
This is not the case. I will still be moderating communities. The difference is, I will be owning the servers as well.
“If there is anyone else in the world who might be able to keep me in check if I do something unreasonable, I can’t handle that. I need to be the ultimate authority over the little hapless users in my domain, period, end of story.”
(Edit:
Jesus Christ man. I know nothing about this guy other than downvotegate, but he sounds like a nimrod.IDK, I take it back, he seems fine. I talked with him and he just has strong feelings about this one issue and he’s making a point. I still think the way he’s trying to make the point is going to have trouble getting received, in the way he’s doing it, but whatever, he seems well intentioned, I don’t think he is any sort of bad way about it having heard him out on it.)I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within “their place,” and any users who don’t like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.
(Edit:
Jesus Christ man. I know nothing about this guy other than downvotegate, but he sounds like a nimrod.IDK, I take it back, he seems fine. I talked with him and he just has strong feelings about this one issue and he’s making a point. I still think the way he’s trying to make the point is going to have trouble getting received, in the way he’s doing it, but whatever, he seems well intentioned, I don’t think he is any sort of bad way about it having heard him out on it.)Nice edit
It’s a hard pill as a mod but you have to swallow it. People are going to do things you don’t like and say things you don’t like. You have to be okay with that. You will not get an echochamber of people who agree with you 100%. The choice is you can either become okay with that and apply some rules that are reasonable - or you can remove everything you disagree with pushing people away.
Look at me. I run a few communities here (and a few elsewhere), but one of them here is !taylorswift@poptalk.scrubbles.tech . I personally am a swiftie and there are dozens of us here on the fediverse. That being said, if I banned anyone for simply downvoting a post or saying something negative about her then I’d have to defederate every instance there is. Instead, I can let my own users do that for me and let people get downvoted to hell in the community, and sometimes out of those bad comments comes some real good discussion. If anything actually comes out that is against the rules, like true hate or bigotry or personal attacks then sure thing I’ll swoop in and remove it, but even for a Swiftie community in the least likely space, that happens extremely infrequently.
Subbed!! I’m a swiftie too!
Happy to have you! There are dozens plus one now!
To be honest I feel like in your case it would be acce to ban systematic downvoters
I do, I have some math that determines how much they downvote vs upvote. I allow downvotes, but if you don’t provide anything positive to the community then I ban them from it.
Do users come in and downvote stuff there because its about Taylor Swift?
It’s mostly All browsers who see her and immediately hit the downvote button.
Y’know, I think this might be a symptom of a problem in Lemmy more than a problem of people.
I’ve noticed that sometimes the feed gives me a sudden influx with dozens of post for the same community, and so after the 30th post about the same thing it’s pretty easy to go “tired of this, don’t care!”
I know for sure I got banned from some AI slop communities more-or-less that way. So that’s a blessing.
I think it would be reasonable if you did ban prolific repeat offenders personally. Obviously not sending DMs, but they’re clearly not interested - you would be helping them curate their own feeds.
That’s actually exactly what I do. I score each one based on their upvote/downvote ratio and from that I can tell if I should ban them. It’s a very forgiving ratio, I don’t want to discourage down voting, but if you do all or mostly down voting then you aren’t contributing. On top of that I agree, if you don’t like it then you should welcome a ban.
I keep saying: The whole moderation model where it is moderators setting up a mandatory override over content within “their place,” and any users who don’t like it are forced to beg for change or complain about the unfairness to others, is simply inferior to the model where it is users deciding which moderators they want to allow to override their content.
What model would you be calling for? How would this work in practice?
Bluesky does it by letting people (or automated systems) publish lists of content and users that that publisher is recommending that people block, and then part of your user config is enabling which of those sources you want to apply to your own feed.
I don’t really know how you could apply that to Lemmy since the model is just different. Mostly I am just talking philosophy and stuff that irritates me about Lemmy’s model. A simplistic approach though could be just to have each user settings include a “mod ignore” list or something alongside the blocks and etc, the list of moderators whose comment deletion and user ban settings you don’t want to respect. So you can still see and interact with content that comes from any users those specific mods have attempted to block.
It would be a little bit messy, it might be better to take a step back and reengineer things to be more user-centric instead of that, but that would be compatible with existing stuff, just easy harm reduction when specific mods are widely recognized by the community to be bums. I also think just the threat of it (and the corresponding loss of credibility and control for the mod) would be a useful check on people who currently feel that lack of credibility in the community means literally nothing to them, and don’t bother to try to maintain it.
(Hey @jordanlund@lemmy.world – remember a week ago when people were talking about your moderation on LW and asked you this and this, and then you just fell silent and still like a frozen bunny waiting for the predator to leave, instead of addressing those reasonable questions?)
Just focusing on one thing specifically here: Your grievance here (and others grievances with him) aren’t really with Jordan at this point, but with the inability or unwillingness of lemmy.world to act. Jordan’s behaviour and positions are well known. Him against the world. He won’t budge. It really is up to lemmy.world now.
In theory, lemmy/piefed etc systems are far better for mod accountability on this score because instance owners and admins are far closer to the community than reddit admins. I can tell you also that atomicpoet, for instance, making this decision didn’t come out of a vacuum on this point.
He won’t budge. It really is up to lemmy.world now.
Who haven’t done anything about it.
Yeah, true that. If I had to engage in rampant speculation, I would say there are two possibilities:
- There isn’t somebody else who’s willing to put in the thankless work day after day to keep the big LW communities free of actually-objectionable content for free, and so they’re basically stuck with Jordan whether or not he is doing a good job
- There are some moderators who want to make quieter but much more explicitly malicious moderation, and it’s kind of nice that Jordan can be a lightning-rod for mod criticism and cause a smokescreen of drama while they’re doing that, so people heavily advocate for keeping him on behind the scenes in some way
Either or both might be true. Like people said in the original Jordan complainfest thread, they’ve known about this for literally years at this point, so I agree it seems a little unlikely that things would change now. Kaplan tried to say that new information has come to light now which is leading them to re-evaluate, but that’s honestly not really all that credible to me. I don’t really know, but if I had to guess I would guess that they’ll keep him on just because whatever structural issues led to them keeping him on in the past just haven’t changed that I am aware of.
I can tell you also that atomicpoet, for instance, making this decision didn’t come out of a vacuum on this point.
Clearly lol. If anything it is a strong point in piefed.social’s favor, is that they’re willing to exercise common sense and take action about dumb behavior by their moderators.
And also, if this becomes a big enough issue - there should be a groundswell effort to dethrone the communities that Jordan moderates and supplant them, This can happen here.
I generally fuck with !politics@beehaw.org and !world@quokk.au, they seem a lot more sensible and enjoyable than the lemmy.world equivalents. Honestly every time I enter into the big-world-event communities on lemmy.world I wind up quickly regretting it just because they are so full of hostile objectionable people who are shouting bad opinions (which of course Jordan does nothing about in the course of his relentless quest to stop people changing headlines or being mean to trolls.)
!politics@sh.itjust.works seems a better fit, Beehaw isn’t federated with LW or SJW
Sorry I missed the reply, lots of stuff going on.
For the replacement bot you offered, I did pass it on to the person who coded the MBFC bot, I honestly don’t know what happened to it after that.
The consensus in my communities seemed to be rabidly “anti-bot”, they don’t want ANY bot, regardless of source. 🤷♂️
So we continue dealing with reported articles case by case.
For the Canadian thing? I made my position clear multiple times, I’m not re-hashing months old Lemmy drama.
For the replacement bot you offered, I did pass it on to the person who coded the MBFC bot, I honestly don’t know what happened to it after that.
Okay, so when you said:
Specifically, with the MBFC bot, yeah, I thought, and still think, it’s a good idea. Was it perfect? Well, no, but it was the best we could do for free. Or free-ish, TBH I’m not sure if there were fees involved in the API use. I can tell you the alternates I looked at were more money than I personally would pay.
But when the complaints on the bot came in, I told people honestly “Hey, I’m open, what’s an alternative?”
At best the response was silence, at worst it was angry noises.
… did you forget that all of that had happened, or what led you to summarize it in that objectively inaccurate way? It wasn’t just me either, the people you summarize as “rabidly anti-bot” actually took a ton of time to explain their reasons in detail and offer alternatives, this is just ridiculous trying to pretend that they were the ones being stubborn and childish about it.
Honestly I’m not sure even what response I am looking for from this. Just making the point I guess, but it’s already been hashed over to the moon and back. Feel free to respond or not, I don’t think it will change anyone’s mind unless you have some kind of really great explanation or dramatic reason for saying it this way, which seems unlikely.
For the Canadian thing? I made my position clear multiple times, I’m not re-hashing months old Lemmy drama.
(For those just joining us, Jordan isn’t Canadian and made a mistake about terminology in the Canadian governmental system, which is fine, but then he started taking mod action against the correct terminology as “misinformation,” and when many people including Canadians who are obviously familiar with it and lemmy.world admins tried to explain it to him, they all just kind of got this type of response.)
(Honestly like I say I also see no benefit to me addressing these issues further. As Skavau said, it seems like it’s more an issue at this point of, Jordan isn’t planning on changing his methods of interaction, and the question is what the rest of Lemmy does about it.)
It’s not a matter of forgetting all that happened, it’s a matter of having dozens of people going “Reeeeeeee! We hate the bot!” and having one person with a sane reply.
As a rule, yes, the responses I got were non-productive. Yours was the exception, not the rule, it got kicked up and nothing came from it.
TBH, that’s the piece I legit don’t remember, why it couldn’t be implemented, I’d have to dig back through old messages to get the whys and wherefores.
But in the end, given the groups reaction to bots in general? I doubt it would make any difference.
“At best the response was silence”
IDK man, I’m done with this conversation
Clearly silence is better than offering a solution.
A solution carries the implication of critique, the recognition of a problem, and authority, ‘respecting’ authority, is very importamt to our dear @jordanlund@lemmy.world
Now on your knees, you filthy disrespectful authority disrespecting bastard, and start digging.
Okay, but here’s the thing: you’re not entitled to every community that exists. People can decide for themselves who they want to associate with. And if an admin is the one footing the bill for the infrastructure, their word is final on who gets through the door.
If you don’t want mods or admins overruling you, then you need to run your own server. That’s the price of control. I already do this with two Fediverse servers, and I fully intend to do the same with a federated forum server.
I am starting to feel sincerely like it would be a good idea for YPTB to adopt a new rule: If you come in with the point of view “THE MODS ARE GODS THEIR DECISIONS MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED”, they get banned instantly, with a short reply from the moderator saying “Can do! My decisions may not be questioned.”
(Temp banned obviously. I’m not a monster.)
Obviously the admins can do what they want with their server, and mods likewise within their communities. What we’re set up to discuss in this community is whether or not they’ve used that control – which they’re obviously able to wield – in a manner that makes them a twatrocket.
There’s a whole philosophy of cooperative endeavor involved here. I just recently got a temp ban that was 100% justified, I’m fine with that. Lots of mods use their mod powers in a way that’s perfectly reasonable and legitimate, and part of a healthy society is that people in whom is vested some level of control over the surroundings, we can talk about whether they’re being reasonable with it. Almost everyone is, and sometimes there are reasonable discussions to be had about if they unintentionally stepped over a line or offended someone or something. This whole model where it’s little warring fiefdoms, and I’m going to be a screaming unrestrained dickhead if I want to when you’re in my fiefdom and if you don’t like it, go somewhere else, is one that people are able to adopt. I don’t think it is a good one. I feel like ignoring the feedback you get, if you do decide that’s your MO, is going to lead to a bad engagement with the rest of the community and a lack of success for your new instance. It’s a give and take, people can talk, sometimes when people are telling you you’re out of line, they’re just kind of looking out for you and letting you know they take offense and probably others do too, you know?
I’ll respond to your edit directly.
My biggest concern isn’t the “general” Lemmy community—I’m focused on building my community. If a group of people on some distant server decide they don’t like me, that’s perfectly fine. I’m not there to serve them.
But if that dislike turns into dogpiling or harassment—as I’ve already experienced—I’ll use the tools available: blocking, banning, and defederation. Once my server is live, those are exactly the measures I’ll rely on.
And yes, I know this approach may feel at odds with the broader Lemmy culture. But Lemmy itself is still quite small—around 36,000 users. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the wider Fediverse, and practically invisible next to social media as a whole.
That’s why I’m confident I can create something federated that doesn’t have to follow Lemmy’s norms or culture.
Yeah, I get that. And you’re right, you can do whatever you want including deciding “this community is all just wrong and I’m going to make something right,” and that’s the nice thing about user-hosted networks like this. And I’ve certainly come down on the side of “the Lemmy community can get lost because the majority is wrong on whatever issue we’re talking about” in the past.
Personally in my judgement I don’t really see it as harassment in this case, I just see people disagreeing strongly with your actions and then getting snarky or insulting about it as people are wont to do – like I said, the only thing I really know about you is that you started banning people for downvotes and “bro” both of which seem ridiculous to me. (And also a tactical error, since rightly or wrongly it’ll invite a kind of dogpiling publicity which I don’t think you want.) But yeah, everyone has the ability to draw their own distinction and follow through on their own server / own community based on you being right and everyone else being wrong versus the other way around.
Well, I can only tell you what actually happened: dogpiling and harassment did occur. I had to lock down !fediversenews, and even after that, people followed me into other communities I moderated to continue harassing me.
At that point, the intention behind the original post matters less than the outcome. If the purpose of a community is to amplify outrage, it’s not surprising when some people inevitably take it too far.
Well but like I say, I think you made kind of a tactical error if you don’t want stuff like that to happen. I have plenty of times seen a mod ban for some reason that almost everyone disagrees with. I have never seen a mod snoop on the upvotes for the banned comment and also attempt to ban people from expressing their approval for the banned content, and then send every one of them a snotty DM about it. I think that’s very obviously an overreach, and there is sort of a societal immune system that automatically wants to backlash against that kind of thing by marking the person who did it as “enemy” and making sure they hear about it that that behavior is unwanted. And of course the internet being what it is, sometimes that backlash takes on a life of its own and turns into something incredibly toxic and unwarranted. I think though that this idea that you’ll set yourself apart from that kind of thing ever happening to you, because you can just run your own server and control everything about how people interact with you, is just a non starter. I think reexamining your own behavior is a lot more positive way to approach making sure you won’t get harassed as much in the future.
IDK man, maybe I’m wrong or I missed finding out about some important details of how it happened. And for all I know some people did harass you in some out-of-pocket way. I’m just saying how I see it, that’s all.
You know, I only tried the private message approach because someone suggested it was the best way to de-escalate. Before that, I would simply ban—no conversation, no debate.
On the servers I run myself, I go even further: I de-federate. No warnings. It’s clean, simple, and fast.
Where I misjudged things—and I see this clearly now—was in thinking that private messages would actually reduce conflict. They don’t. If someone shows signs of being toxic, or openly supports toxic behaviour, it’s best to take them at their word. A conversation in that situation won’t lead anywhere productive.
So yes, messaging turned out to be a big waste of time. The real takeaway for me is simple: own the space, set clear expectations, and act quickly when problems arise.
No, no—moderators aren’t all-powerful. They do important work, but they also have very real limits.
Administrators, on the other hand, carry much greater authority.
And just because someone doesn’t get along with another person doesn’t mean they’re automatically entitled to that person’s spaces. What I find appealing about the Fediverse is precisely that ability to manage the whole stack myself—without waiting on a distant company like Meta or X to make those decisions for me.
Of course, I could be banned for saying this. But since this thread is about me, and about my upcoming plans, I think it’s only fair that I share them openly.
And just because someone doesn’t get along with another person
TIL using a colloquialism is the same thing as not getting along.
You and I disagree on whether it’s just a harmless colloquialism.
I don’t like bro-talk. Because bro-talk feeds bro culture—and bro culture is something I want no part of.
And according to you that disagreement also means we don’t get along. Because otherwise you wouldn’t be banning people for saying bro, bro.
You would be correct.
to that person’s spaces
Ah, so…
It seems like you want yo choose how you are seen and have a eorld that includes others but has no room for them to take any agency. You’re big on concept that things are owned.
I believe my work should remain my own, and I should have the freedom to choose who I associate with. The only way to guarantee that—both practically and legally—is by covering the cost of the server myself.
And you absolutely have your own agency as well. It just means you may need to exercise it in a space that’s a better fit for you.
Im not saying you need to associate with anyone in particular, im saying you might be saying that to paper over some seriously fucked/unhealthy attitudes towards what people are amd what you want from them. They’re not toys. You can curate, but even the closest collaborators will have differences that need resolving. Saying that rwsolution must always fit uour exact vision if even a small part of the world is pretty fuvked up.
Generally speaking, I get along with people just fine. But I also believe you need to have principles. Without them, what do you really stand for?
I’m not entitled to or interested in a community you run, but this is really cringe and implies a lot of really awful shit about you.
You get how that looks, right? Wanting ‘total control’ of a community?
I don’t agree with the idea that everyone is automatically entitled to my server. For me, running a server is about configuring and curating a space I’m prepared to take responsibility for.
The Fediverse gives that same freedom to everyone. If someone doesn’t like how a server is managed, they can join another or create their own. That’s the strength of the model—real choice.
So when I talk about “control,” I’m talking about shaping my own space, not laying claim to anyone else’s.
But if the space includes people, this stops being so simple.
Sure, because people are complex.
But that goes back to what I said previously. There’s freedom of association, and the Fediverse gives that. There’s lots of options. You don’t have to interact with me, nor I with you.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if I’m reading this right; the way you’re trying to use it is potentially pathological toxic and doomed.
How’s that different from having your personal site or blog? Because that sounds like what you want, instead of a fediverse instance
Federation is two way, while a blog tends to be one way.
Mastodon does not segment according to interest other than hashtags. Hashtags are non-moderated and can be abused with spam.
I have no problem with people commenting or contributing provided they are good people. Hell, I’ll even host them. Provided, of course, they understand the limitations of that hosting.
If I had my way, everyone would be self-hosting.
bro couldn’t handle being questioned
Even if the mod was too intense, it’s sad to see communities go when they have a following. Can they be revived with their communities intact to continue on under new leadership?
None of them had a large following. The one potential exception could be !fediversenews@piefed.social, but it wasn’t that active since @Sunshine@piefed.ca switched to !fediverse@piefed.social
Two of them had around 500 users, another had about 250, and a few were pretty new—just created within the last couple of weeks.
I was the main contributor, but plenty of people joined in with comments and discussion.
All of these communities will be rebuilt on my own server.
Two of them had around 500 users, another had about 250
Weren’t those the ones you brought over from the previous Friendica server where you built those communities before coming to piefed.social?
No, !fediversenews was brought over from Friendica.
!amiga and !record pics were started on piefed.social, and they each had 500 subscribers.
!videogames had 250 subscribers.
!sizz, !blue, and !lumoura were all sizable, but I forget what the exact numbers were.
!eats, !comicbooks, and !books were all new and only had a handful of followers.
There were a few others, I think. But I only posted there sporadically.
Interesting. Subscribers aren’t usually the best metrics to assess a community, as ghost accounts are still subscribed, active users is usually a better one.
Well, if that’s the metric, then I was doing very well. !videogames was one of the most active communities on piefed.social before it was deleted.
That doesn’t really say much, the most active video games community on the Threadiverse are !gaming@lemmy.world or !games@sh.itjust.works and have thousands of monthly active users.
I’m pretty sure !videogames@piefed.social at a different level
This is one thing that gives me less hope about the fediverse. If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.
He wasn’t moderating any large communities.
The difference here is that if this was Reddit, an out-of-control community moderator would be untouchable and they’d have a monopoly on the community name. This doesn’t happen on the Fediverse.
If a community gets large and this happens, I feel they fracture when they move.
They don’t, what fractures communities is having similar communities active at the same time.
!television@piefed.social is the only single active community about television, it is much more active than !movies@piefed.social as !movies@lemmy.world is still open, giving https://lawsofux.com/choice-overload/ to posters, commenters and subscribers
I’ll buy that.
That happens on centralized social media too though
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}