While at the same time passing judgment and adopting a disdainful tone towards disagreed with your opinion. That is the most objectionable part.
Pointing out where I draw boundaries isn’t disdain—it’s clarity. I’ve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I won’t do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (“cool story bro”) is just harmless slang. That’s not disdain, that’s naming behaviour for what it is.
And the only reason you had for calling those users ‘toxic’ is because they showed some sign of disagreement with your previously unpublished and unknown policy?”*
That’s not accurate. I didn’t call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. That’s different from disagreement. You’re collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and they’re not.
A ‘bro’ is the person who laughs at cruelty because it’s entertaining… I mean really? Talk about hyperbole. Any one of us could easily come up with 10 negative and 10 positive connotations for the word ‘bro.’
This isn’t hyperbole. “Bro” is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:
Fake familiarity (“cool story bro” from strangers isn’t friendship).
Diminishment and mockery (it often carries sarcasm).
Gender exclusion (assumes a male default in-group).
Gender assumption (applies a label regardless of identity).
That’s not me inventing baggage out of thin air—it’s how the word is used in real contexts.
All you seem to be doing is mis-characterising the use of a commonplace word as problematic based on nothing but your own imaginings, and then using that mis-characterisation to vilify users you disagree with on the topic.
No. I’m not vilifying people for disagreement. I’m drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. That’s the job of an admin: curating the space they’re responsible for. The word “bro” as commonly used isn’t just “a commonplace word.” It’s a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. That’s why I’m flagging it.
As an anarchist, rigid hierarchies and those who create them aren’t to my taste.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.
Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. That’s how a community should function. That’s how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. I’d last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so I’ll leave it at that.
You’re describing elections, not the absence of hierarchy. That may make your server representative, but it doesn’t make it non-hierarchical. Someone still fits the role of admin, someone still has the keys to the machine, and someone can still pull the plug on the entire server at any moment.
That’s not egalitarianism—that’s hierarchy with window dressing. Elections don’t erase the structure. They just decide who occupies it. And the structure itself carries the same asymmetries: technical control, federation policies, enforcement of rules, the ability to de-federate or delete outright.
Which is fine—server administration is hierarchical by design. But it undercuts your attempt to paint my stance as authoritarian. I’m upfront about what the role entails: curating and enforcing standards in the space I’m responsible for. You’re doing the same thing, just phrased differently.
And that flourish about “pointless debating points” is cowardice. You’ve been caught in your own contradiction—preaching anarchism while holding the keys to a server—and rather than face it, you try to wave it away. That’s not an argument. That’s an admission you’ve got nothing left.
If I abused my position I would fully expect to be held accountable by one of our other admins. And I’ve also reversed mod decisions due to user feedback. But in order to do that you’ve got to be open and responsive to feedback in the first place. But when you are the sole admin there is nobody to keep your ego in check. I still had that [left], I guess.
Thank you for describing it as a flourish, I liked that part.
You are making a ton of assumptions based total ignorance of how dbzer0 is operated and governed, even how many admins we have, or of the history of how it ended up under db0’s project domain. And it’s not my job to educate you, especially because I can tell already that nothing I can say will disabuse you of your self-serving preconceptions.
It really doesn’t matter how many admins you’ve got or how you divvy up the titles. Lemmy, by design, requires an admin for it to even function. That alone makes it hierarchical.
Any community can only be what the software allows it to be. And Lemmy hardcodes a structure: admin → mods → lowly “users.” (Isn’t it funny how both the software industry and drug dealers refer to people as “users”?) Your ideals can’t undo the fact that this is a hierarchy baked into the system.
If you truly believed in the purity of your anarchism, no one would “own” the server. Hell, there wouldn’t even be a server. It would all be peer-to-peer nodes, something closer to Secure Scuttlebutt.
But instead you’re here, running software built from the ground up for hierarchy. And you’re an admin of it. How very anarchist of you.
You seem to hold a fundamentally different view of what an admin can/should be. Idk if that’s just a consequence of a turbolib brain or what, but it sounds incredibly foreign to me. In my experience on Blahaj and here on DB0, the understanding is that the admins are providing a service for us. Provider, protector, facilitator- these titles don’t represent an inherent hierarchy, and neither does administrator
The thing is, all communities on the Internet can only ever be what the system is designed to allow.
If a platform is built for hierarchy, then it is a hierarchy—regardless of the ideals people bring into it. No amount of goodwill or re-labelling (“provider,” “protector,” “facilitator”) changes the fact that the software has hard-coded roles with asymmetric power.
And this isn’t some quirky personal view of mine. People far more intelligent than me have been pointing this out for decades. Lawrence Lessig, in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999), put it bluntly:
“Code is law. What people can and cannot do in cyberspace is regulated by the software and hardware that make cyberspace what it is.”
Geert Lovink, in Networks Without a Cause (2011), made the same point about platforms and power:
”Design decisions are power decisions. Interfaces, defaults, permissions—they do not merely ‘enable’ interaction, they structure it, and in doing so they impose hierarchies.”
Helen Nissenbaum, in Values in Design (2005), sharpened it further:
”The architectures of systems—their technical frameworks—inevitably embed social and political values. Claims to neutrality obscure the ways in which they establish constraints and privileges.”
History is full of examples where egalitarian ideals ran headlong into the hard wall of software architecture.
Wikipedia was envisioned as a flat, peer-produced project—yet its reliance on admin powers and arbitration committees quickly created an entrenched hierarchy of “super-editors.” Reddit’s early culture thrived on openness, but its karma system and centralized admins ultimately entrenched a ranking-and-punishment order that couldn’t be wished away. Even early Usenet communities, which imagined themselves as free-flowing conversations, were shaped by killfiles, moderators, and backbone hierarchies dictated by the protocol itself.
So when I point out that Lemmy is hierarchical, it’s not some rhetorical trick. It’s simply recognizing that hierarchy is baked into the software.
You can call admins “facilitators,” you can hold elections, you can promise benevolence—but the structure is still a pyramid, and it will always tilt power toward whoever holds the keys.
That’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a matter of design.
![[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}
Pointing out where I draw boundaries isn’t disdain—it’s clarity. I’ve said repeatedly that not all of Lemmy is bro culture. What I won’t do is pretend that dismissive behaviour (“cool story bro”) is just harmless slang. That’s not disdain, that’s naming behaviour for what it is.
That’s not accurate. I didn’t call people toxic simply for disagreeing. I said if someone shows signs of being toxic or openly supports toxic behaviour, I take them at their word. That’s different from disagreement. You’re collapsing behaviour and disagreement into the same thing, and they’re not.
This isn’t hyperbole. “Bro” is rarely neutral in practice. It has consistent cultural functions:
That’s not me inventing baggage out of thin air—it’s how the word is used in real contexts.
No. I’m not vilifying people for disagreement. I’m drawing a line against behaviours and tones that diminish others. That’s the job of an admin: curating the space they’re responsible for. The word “bro” as commonly used isn’t just “a commonplace word.” It’s a cultural signal that often carries exclusion, mockery, or fake intimacy. That’s why I’m flagging it.
But you are an admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com. That’s a hierarchical role. You set the rules. You decide federation. You sit at the top of the decision-making structure. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that—every admin does it. But it undercuts the idea that I’m somehow authoritarian for being upfront about doing the same thing. Running a server is hierarchy. The difference is whether you acknowledge it or pretend it doesn’t exist.
Our users can vote admins and mods out if they want to. They also vote on any rule changes. That’s how a community should function. That’s how we do checks and balances to prevent abuse of admin powers, such as enforcing my personal opinions on all our users. I’d last about 1 day if I started doing that. So no, it undercuts nothing, and now you are just trying to score pointless debating points so I’ll leave it at that.
You’re describing elections, not the absence of hierarchy. That may make your server representative, but it doesn’t make it non-hierarchical. Someone still fits the role of admin, someone still has the keys to the machine, and someone can still pull the plug on the entire server at any moment.
That’s not egalitarianism—that’s hierarchy with window dressing. Elections don’t erase the structure. They just decide who occupies it. And the structure itself carries the same asymmetries: technical control, federation policies, enforcement of rules, the ability to de-federate or delete outright.
Which is fine—server administration is hierarchical by design. But it undercuts your attempt to paint my stance as authoritarian. I’m upfront about what the role entails: curating and enforcing standards in the space I’m responsible for. You’re doing the same thing, just phrased differently.
And that flourish about “pointless debating points” is cowardice. You’ve been caught in your own contradiction—preaching anarchism while holding the keys to a server—and rather than face it, you try to wave it away. That’s not an argument. That’s an admission you’ve got nothing left.
If I abused my position I would fully expect to be held accountable by one of our other admins. And I’ve also reversed mod decisions due to user feedback. But in order to do that you’ve got to be open and responsive to feedback in the first place. But when you are the sole admin there is nobody to keep your ego in check. I still had that [left], I guess.
Thank you for describing it as a flourish, I liked that part.
So if you ever abuse your power, you’ll be held accountable… by the other admin.
The other guy sitting at the top of the hierarchy.
The same guy who named the whole server after himself.
Yeah, no hierarchies or egos here. Just pure, uncut anarchism.
You are making a ton of assumptions based total ignorance of how dbzer0 is operated and governed, even how many admins we have, or of the history of how it ended up under db0’s project domain. And it’s not my job to educate you, especially because I can tell already that nothing I can say will disabuse you of your self-serving preconceptions.
It really doesn’t matter how many admins you’ve got or how you divvy up the titles. Lemmy, by design, requires an admin for it to even function. That alone makes it hierarchical.
Any community can only be what the software allows it to be. And Lemmy hardcodes a structure: admin → mods → lowly “users.” (Isn’t it funny how both the software industry and drug dealers refer to people as “users”?) Your ideals can’t undo the fact that this is a hierarchy baked into the system.
If you truly believed in the purity of your anarchism, no one would “own” the server. Hell, there wouldn’t even be a server. It would all be peer-to-peer nodes, something closer to Secure Scuttlebutt.
But instead you’re here, running software built from the ground up for hierarchy. And you’re an admin of it. How very anarchist of you.
Lmao you are the very worst example of a reddit-style debate bro I’ve ever seen on Lemmy. No wonder everything is going so well for you.
Thanks, though—our back-and-forth did get me thinking about the feasibility of true peer-to-peer software that offers Reddit-like topical functions.
Something where there aren’t admins, mods, or “users.” Something anarchist by design, not just by branding.
Appreciate the inspiration.
You seem to hold a fundamentally different view of what an admin can/should be. Idk if that’s just a consequence of a turbolib brain or what, but it sounds incredibly foreign to me. In my experience on Blahaj and here on DB0, the understanding is that the admins are providing a service for us. Provider, protector, facilitator- these titles don’t represent an inherent hierarchy, and neither does administrator
The thing is, all communities on the Internet can only ever be what the system is designed to allow.
If a platform is built for hierarchy, then it is a hierarchy—regardless of the ideals people bring into it. No amount of goodwill or re-labelling (“provider,” “protector,” “facilitator”) changes the fact that the software has hard-coded roles with asymmetric power.
And this isn’t some quirky personal view of mine. People far more intelligent than me have been pointing this out for decades. Lawrence Lessig, in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999), put it bluntly:
Geert Lovink, in Networks Without a Cause (2011), made the same point about platforms and power:
Helen Nissenbaum, in Values in Design (2005), sharpened it further:
History is full of examples where egalitarian ideals ran headlong into the hard wall of software architecture.
Wikipedia was envisioned as a flat, peer-produced project—yet its reliance on admin powers and arbitration committees quickly created an entrenched hierarchy of “super-editors.” Reddit’s early culture thrived on openness, but its karma system and centralized admins ultimately entrenched a ranking-and-punishment order that couldn’t be wished away. Even early Usenet communities, which imagined themselves as free-flowing conversations, were shaped by killfiles, moderators, and backbone hierarchies dictated by the protocol itself.
So when I point out that Lemmy is hierarchical, it’s not some rhetorical trick. It’s simply recognizing that hierarchy is baked into the software.
You can call admins “facilitators,” you can hold elections, you can promise benevolence—but the structure is still a pyramid, and it will always tilt power toward whoever holds the keys.
That’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a matter of design.