The software also doesn’t force people in any community to stay on the topic of that community, that is done through moderation.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use
Actually it is more like having a BBQ competition in the park where only people who registered can participate in the BBQ competition but everyone else is free to watch, but not group up and shout over the people participating in the competition.
the park is all of lemmy. WomensStuff doesn’t own all of lemmy, so that doesn’t really fit with the metaphor.
more accurate would be, if a small group marched into the park, staked off a section right in the middle, put up a little sign they made themselves, and declared this to be a competition area. all without any coordination with park authorities, without any permits, and with no prior warning to the general community.
it’s simply rude. that’s really what it boils down to.
lemmy is public by default. that’s the entire point. so declaring that this specific patch lemmy (or grass to keep with the metaphor) suddenly isn’t public anymore, is at least rude.
it’s just not how public spaces work.
i want to reiterate here, that, again, i totally understand why women want a space just for them.
it’s that using the rules instead of any number of other enforcement mechanism is really, really not how things are done around here. that’s why it is considered so rude by so many other users.
The instances are the park authorities and the communities are their permits. They didn’t just stake off a part of the park without that structure in place.
If a park has a camp going on, limited by age, they don’t let people who are not signed up to participate in the camp.
You can still use the rest of the park when the camp is going on and the BBQ competition is going, but they still have some restrictions even in a public setting.
Honestly I’m not sure how limiting who can participate is significantly different from what and how discussions are restricted in communities. The only argument against it that I can see is that it is based on gender, and that simply isn’t a black and white issue.
if someone’s car is blocking half the sidewalk, forcing every passerby to walk around…is that made any better when they hang a little sign on it saying “please mind the car”?
they’re still in the way. they could go all the way up their driveway, there’s plenty of room, they just choose to make their bad parking everyone else’s problem.
that’s what’s going on here:
they could correctly configure their community like everyone else, but they choose to make it everyone else’s problem when they show up in the all feed.
and the all feed is not owned by any one instance, which is why your analogy with the authorities doesn’t work. (the park analogy isn’t great anyway, the driveway/sidewalk one is better, i think)
their attitude of “just block it, if you don’t like it” is the very definition of making their community everybody’s else’s problem.
and i think that’s rude and inconsiderate.
and if you can’t see how it’s way worse to control how who can post is much worse than what gets posted:
it’s the difference between banning pride merch from your store, and banning queer people from your store.
both might be bad, but one is clearly much, MUCH worse!
I’m currently imagining you seeing a group of people talking on the sidewalk and you forcing your way into their space and insisting that you be a part of it because you saw their group existed.
sure, if you change absolutely everything about what i said and twisted it around into a completely different situation that has nothing to do with anything being discussed, you might have a point!
i never once said i want to be a part of it.
i never once said that their existence is a problem.
in fact i’ve said the opposite multiple times.
it’s their insistence on being public and then getting annoyed when someone wanders in on accident, assuming entirely reasonably, that is a public space, since, you know, it IS public, that i take issue with.
i don’t want to participate, and i respect their rules.
what i don’t want is posts either complaining about others missing the rules and posting by mistake, and what i also don’t want are posts like this one claiming that having communities which are clearly, by their own rules, private communities that are kept open to the public being somehow fine. which then necessitates idiotic spam like this very post.
you want a private corner for your group? fine, set it to private. that’s exactly what that is for.
if you want to reach lots of people, keep it open. and expect people to interpret said “open” sign to actually mean open, because that is what you willfully set it to.
The software also doesn’t force people in any community to stay on the topic of that community, that is done through moderation.
Actually it is more like having a BBQ competition in the park where only people who registered can participate in the BBQ competition but everyone else is free to watch, but not group up and shout over the people participating in the competition.
no, that is very much different.
pie recipes on FuckCars get deleted because of their content, not because of who posted them.
rules are supposed to be for content.
this constitutes a misuse of the rule system.
I revised my example to fit the park setting, but not fast enough. Can you see if that makes more sense?
The software limitation signage is that the signage is hard to see.
i mean, kind of? not really?
the park is all of lemmy. WomensStuff doesn’t own all of lemmy, so that doesn’t really fit with the metaphor.
more accurate would be, if a small group marched into the park, staked off a section right in the middle, put up a little sign they made themselves, and declared this to be a competition area. all without any coordination with park authorities, without any permits, and with no prior warning to the general community.
it’s simply rude. that’s really what it boils down to.
lemmy is public by default. that’s the entire point. so declaring that this specific patch lemmy (or grass to keep with the metaphor) suddenly isn’t public anymore, is at least rude.
it’s just not how public spaces work.
i want to reiterate here, that, again, i totally understand why women want a space just for them.
it’s that using the rules instead of any number of other enforcement mechanism is really, really not how things are done around here. that’s why it is considered so rude by so many other users.
it breaks the unspoken rules of the platform.
The instances are the park authorities and the communities are their permits. They didn’t just stake off a part of the park without that structure in place.
If a park has a camp going on, limited by age, they don’t let people who are not signed up to participate in the camp.
You can still use the rest of the park when the camp is going on and the BBQ competition is going, but they still have some restrictions even in a public setting.
Honestly I’m not sure how limiting who can participate is significantly different from what and how discussions are restricted in communities. The only argument against it that I can see is that it is based on gender, and that simply isn’t a black and white issue.
okay, put it a different way:
if someone’s car is blocking half the sidewalk, forcing every passerby to walk around…is that made any better when they hang a little sign on it saying “please mind the car”?
they’re still in the way. they could go all the way up their driveway, there’s plenty of room, they just choose to make their bad parking everyone else’s problem.
that’s what’s going on here:
they could correctly configure their community like everyone else, but they choose to make it everyone else’s problem when they show up in the all feed.
and the all feed is not owned by any one instance, which is why your analogy with the authorities doesn’t work. (the park analogy isn’t great anyway, the driveway/sidewalk one is better, i think)
their attitude of “just block it, if you don’t like it” is the very definition of making their community everybody’s else’s problem.
and i think that’s rude and inconsiderate.
and if you can’t see how it’s way worse to control how who can post is much worse than what gets posted:
it’s the difference between banning pride merch from your store, and banning queer people from your store.
both might be bad, but one is clearly much, MUCH worse!
I’m currently imagining you seeing a group of people talking on the sidewalk and you forcing your way into their space and insisting that you be a part of it because you saw their group existed.
That is what you are describing.
sure, if you change absolutely everything about what i said and twisted it around into a completely different situation that has nothing to do with anything being discussed, you might have a point!
i never once said i want to be a part of it.
i never once said that their existence is a problem.
in fact i’ve said the opposite multiple times.
it’s their insistence on being public and then getting annoyed when someone wanders in on accident, assuming entirely reasonably, that is a public space, since, you know, it IS public, that i take issue with.
i don’t want to participate, and i respect their rules.
what i don’t want is posts either complaining about others missing the rules and posting by mistake, and what i also don’t want are posts like this one claiming that having communities which are clearly, by their own rules, private communities that are kept open to the public being somehow fine. which then necessitates idiotic spam like this very post.
you want a private corner for your group? fine, set it to private. that’s exactly what that is for.
if you want to reach lots of people, keep it open. and expect people to interpret said “open” sign to actually mean open, because that is what you willfully set it to.
wanting it both ways is some serious bs…