This is an opportunity for any users, server admins, or interested third parties to ask anything they’d like to @nutomic@lemmy.ml and I about Lemmy. This includes its development and future, as well as wider issues relevant to the social media landscape today.
Note: This will be the thread tmrw, so you can use this thread to ask and vote on questions beforehand.
I have heard some respectable communities, namely r/AskHistorians, express hesitance at coming to Lemmy in part over fears of appearing biased due to the overt political stance of Lemmy’s creators. In other words, it’s hard to be a neutral body in affiliation with anything that has an overt political stance.
I wonder what the devs of Lemmy think of this hesitance. Is it unreasonable and itself biased? Or do you see any potential for finding a way to facilitate a platform that would allow for a more neutral space?
They can run their own lemmy server, and they don’t need to federate with any servers run by or for proles or anyone else they find distasteful.
Also, the deepest faith you can have in a political ideology is when you don’t recognize you have one.
“Neutrality” as a concept doesn’t exist. People who claim to be neutral are usually pro status quo, so they don’t need to express any political views because things are going well for them so far with the current politics.
Uh huh…yeah sure…they’re worried about lemmy…right…
Who is u/audax ?
If anyone considers themselves a historian and thinks anything is unbiased, their experience and insight will be dubious at best. Understanding that everyone has a distinct worldview and therefore bias is literally high-school history class, years before History 101. Do they think reddit.com, or any reddit alternative for that matter, is unbiased or neutral??
Not only is it irrelevant in context (FOSS, forkable, the devs in question only moderate this single instance), it’s especially unreasonable coming from /r/AskHistorians. They of all people should be able to understand bias, context and causation. If anything, this bias is just a guarantee that they won’t sell out and extort the userbase.
They’re classic Moralintern lol
Because real historians aren’t the ones using r/ask historians and answering on there
You don’t know anything about r/AH do you?
I’ve read the posts. They are almost all very obviously unreaserched and unknowledgeable answers that no real historian would ever spew
What are you talking about? It is BY FAR the subreddit with the most consistently throughly cited responses. Comments get removed even just for not having sources.
You are not talking about the same subreddit, please check yourself. Or maybe provide some citations of your own if you’re going to say that content of that caliber is “unresearched”. I mean who the heck are you??
Yeah but if allows awful sources for one. I’ve seen absolutely trash sources being the only thing on top questions. You can go through there yourself and see the ridiculousness of the answers on the subreddit. It’s awful. It’s very clear that the answers aren’t by actual historians as any education in it at all would make people see how awful the answers that get upvoted so very often are
Maybe these so-called historians just need to brush up on the history of all hitherto existing society.
This is antithetical to the decentralised web. The primary feature is that there’s no centralised control. Create your own askhistorians instance.
That’s ridiculous. Reddit has massive political bias as well