this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)
LemmyToday
258 readers
3 users here now
If you experience issues or problems with this instance (lemmy.today), this is the place to discuss them. Or if you just want to ask questions about how something works. Anything related to the instance or lemmy itself.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't have any objection to them as long as people aren't trying to "eat up" community names en masse or something, and I don't think that there's some raging torrent of people wanting to run discussion conservative communities that this is blocking. I mean, I'm not really very interested in no-discussion communities myself, but I don't think that they cause any particular harm. There are probably some people who are just fine with an RSS-feed-style thing. And I'd expect that a minority of communities would fit my particular tastes.
I don't have any objection to the admins saying that they don't like it as a matter of policy, though I think that in practice, it's going to likely result in the mod placing restrictive rules for discussion (like, I'm assuming that he wants to run his conservative community without a lot of political disagreement) and an enforcement headache.
I would personally suggest doing this on a lazy basis. I mean, I don't think that inactive communities hurt unless the moderators are inactive and there are moderators who do want to actively moderate. If someone wants to take over moderation, can just accept a request to take the thing over. It's easy enough to sort communities by activity to find active ones if one wants.
I do think that there's maybe some argument for proactively removing "throwaway" communities that are named something like "test37" and have one post and are clearly never going to go anywhere.
It's your instance, so your call. If you want all communities to be explicitly light-touch moderation, your call. Personally, I think that restrictive moderation is fine, as long as I'm not restricted from using a light-touch moderated community. I mean, I don't really like moderation and admin stuff on lemmygrad.ml, but I also don't really think that defederating from it makes sense. It's just one more option, and clearly some people do like that sort of thing. Same deal with local communities.
That being said, it could also be that having an explicitly-permissive-communities instance might be valued by some users. Like, lemmy.blahaj.zone is a trans-oriented instance. pawb.social is a furry-oriented instance. Might be that some users would like an instance where moderators aren't allowed to restrict discussion like that. Not really something that I'm hankering for, but there could be users who want it. Part of the benefit of having a bunch of instances on the Threadiverse is that it's possible to try doing stuff like that, and if people don't like it, well, also a bunch of other instances to put a community on.
Thanks for your input!
I think you are right about this. Anyone can create a community where posts are allowed to be discussed if they want to. It doesnt create any harm to let locked communities exist, if an open community can be created by someone else.
I also agree with you about moderation. I dont like certain instances, but I believe it must be up to the user to decide if they want to see content from there. It would otherwise be like trying to stand outside a store I dont like, and blocking people from going in there, because I dont like the store.
In my conservative community, people now about how locking it stopped discussion, but I wasn't getting discussion. Every article was just people calling me a Nazi. None of the comments were about politics. It was immediately name calling and accusations. I started locking after the Kirk shooting when Lemmy was in a very weird place of celebrating blood lust.
Unlocked now tho. I think it's calmed down a bit.
And also, your post is full of great insights!