Oh no no no. Sorry, it was probably my fault since english is not my native language. I was referring to theirs instances! in your example, the neo-nazis instances.
In other words, I was trying to say that I agree with instances (like beehaw) being able to block what they consider to be toxic instances, but I’m against removing instances from the lemmy fediverse if that’s even possible. Like, removing them from the network.
Sorry, I didn’t understood what you meant. Especially the parenthesis part.
I wish the fediverse is able to contain all the ideas, all the political positions and that disconnecting/blocking an instance is only used for behaviors like spamming. Not giving every political stance the opportunity to be a part of the same world fuels extremists.
Beehaw and other instances can kick all the users with far-right beliefs. That’s fair. But Lemmy users shouldn’t be blocked to listen to or even interact with them, in their own instances, if they wanted. Don’t help creating political ghettos.
I’m reading The Stranger, by Albert Camus. It’s a short read and I’m already focusing on some of The Atlantic’s recommendations in the Summer Reading Guide.
I just want to say thanks for such an honest and comprehensive explanation. I don’t think I have much to offer, but I feel very welcomed (is that a word?) here. The choices you made and the ethos you hold yourself and the instance against seem very well intentioned and a good way to circumvent some of the nastiest things social networks brought to this world. There are lots of places in the internet to get ethically subjective content, for those who want it. This doesn’t need to be a place for it.
The “growing” part of the network project it’s very subjective. Of course that a network needs a good amount of users to generate enough content and discussion, but at the same time, crowds usually don’t add much to the niceness of any place.
Thanks once again for creating this.