Isn’t it the users that essential keep their instances alive?
“we are willing to cut users that don’t fit with what we are aiming for and think that instances sound have particular goals pther then ‘growth’”
Prioritizing growth over anything else is the logic of commercial startups, weeds, and cancers.
It is quite possible for a project to have other goals.
People who grow up in that system sometimes have a hard time understanding why you would do it differently.
People don’t even understand why the Linux kernel was not made into a big tech company so Linus Thorvald could become a billionaire. Because there is nothing out there to make them think another way.
People do things for other reasons than money, but that seems to be a mystery to some people. Turning down money and power, why??
So, I’m answering this without all of the context. But I think that their statement could, potentially, make sense for some instances. I don’t think it makes sense for most/all general instances.
But imagine, for example, an instance whose sole purpose is pornography (seems like the easiest example). All communities created on that instance show pornography and nothing else. Now imagine someone joins that instance who is completely against porn, and all they do is complain about the porn and report posts for being porn. I think that the admins would be within their right to remove/ban that user for not aligning with their instance’s purpose.
Yeah without context this can be a reasonable position. A small percentage of users are more trouble than they’re worth.
Seems like a reasonable position? If your goal is a safe welcoming community, cutting users who do not fit that initiative makes sense. If someone is racist or insulting, regardless of if they have donated or you see an influx of people with similar ideals, it is against the goals and objectives of the instance and the community they wish to foster. So, cutting them off seems appropriate.
i can understand where they’re coming from
if your instance was called lemmy.freds.com, and your goal was to create an instance purely for people called fred to use; it would be understandable to remove people who claimed to be called fred, and then it turns out they actually aren’t
now i don’t know what instance this is, but say it’s lemmy.dbzer0.com - if a user is going around decrying piracy, or reporting copyright infringement on lemmy to authorities; i think it would be reasonable to remove them
What if they are cutting you off because you are of a particular race they don’t like?
Being in the US doesn’t make you a white male.
Seems like you’re just trying to drum up drama, tbh
This is my thoughts as well.
Then you’re better off not using their instance. Forcing instances to host everyone isn’t as open-minded as you think. If lemmy is to be policed and forced-inclusion is to be implemented …. Then lemmy isn’t really free.
Racism- any “ism” for that matter, sucks, but in a social media atmosphere, provided it’s not physically hurting someone or, targeted harassment towards anyone, should be allowed- or it’s not a free society.
I feel like you’re being purposely vague. Is this a lemmy instance? Just link the thread.
that’s ok, because it’s the “bad” race.
I don’t see an issue with this at all?
I remember this lionir guy from the Fedora community. They’re sound.
The users are only keeping the instance alive if they’re donating to its costs.
They want a certain type of environment for their instance. There’s nothing wrong with this at all.
Some people don’t way to spend their time and money running instances for a bunch of people they don’t like.
Better call the cops.
Growth is important to an extent of having stability
But past that some instances don’t really desire to be the mainstream go-to site. And not all people want to be on the mainstream go-to site, or at least want alternatives.
And at the end of the day, the mods are the ones who have to moderate it.
Infinite growth is not just unnecessary but in many places (cough economics) it’s cancerous. It’s always good to have a goal that has a feasible endpoint.
