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.
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.
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.
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
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
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.
I assumed most of the people would know of the context
Haha, nope. This is the very first post on the subject I’ve seen.
And now I’m just really confused about how someone could be offended by the term “bro”. Personally I’d say it’s gender-neutral, but I can understand a woman, especially a trans woman, being opposed to the term. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. So it’s just…weird. It’s a friendly term of endearment.
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.
![[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}
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.
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.)
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
Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is “I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED,” I feel like those people wouldn’t be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the “word of God” position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn’t be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.
The fact that YPTB doesn’t work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn’t really change that. They’re still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).
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
Haha, nope. This is the very first post on the subject I’ve seen.
And now I’m just really confused about how someone could be offended by the term “bro”. Personally I’d say it’s gender-neutral, but I can understand a woman, especially a trans woman, being opposed to the term. But that doesn’t seem to be what’s going on here. So it’s just…weird. It’s a friendly term of endearment.
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!