Sure, there are always outliers and you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s just the overall impression I have.

(I wasn’t sure if !asklemmy@lemmy.world or this community would fit better for this kind of question, but I assume it fits here.)

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    “For example, in terms of attracting new users” - meaning that’s the whole point of the question, so I’ll address that.

    Lemmy isn’t a corporation and doesn’t have to think like one. Market share means nothing. The goal is a high-quality app that does what its users want. If a majority of those users have a similar range of political views, that’s just how it works out. There’s nothing stopping ultra-conservatives from spinning up Lemmy instances if they want, blocking communities whose overall personality they don’t like, and banning users they don’t like. If this balkanizes the lemmy userverse, I don’t see that as an issue.

    • OpenStars@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Conversely though: you are considered a right-winger by some (Lemmy.World = neoliberal bastion of not extreme enough Leftists). (And to be extra clear: me as well:-)

      I agree that we must exclude trolling behaviors and those who refuse to not do them, but not bc of their beliefs and rather bc of their intolerance to anyone who disagrees. But by the same token, we must not become them in the process.

      This would exclude both the Alt-Right, as well as the Alt-Left, leaving us centrists in the middle. And a week ago I would have added: “who don’t want to violently overthrow all of society”, although now I’m not so sure that a goodly fraction of Lemmy agrees with that anymore.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        56 minutes ago

        I’ve always voted liberal up and down the ticket, and in my daily interactions you would be hard-pressed to find me acting like anybody’s idea of a right-winger. But I don’t look at every detail of liberal doctrine as the sacred word of the gods. In many liberal forums you have to parrot all the correct doctrine and wear a pristine pure white hat, or people (apparently including yourself) will put a black hat on you. But really anyone who puts themself on a high pedestal of moral perfection is delusional.

        • OpenStars@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 minutes ago

          Exactly what I’m saying. One mark of an extremist is often a kind of moral purity test of their ideology. I too was shocked to find out that I am considered “right-wing”, by the extremist left on places such as Lemmygrad.ml, hexbear.net, and lemmy.ml. The latter is federated with by almost everyone, and they will call you and me as “right-wing”.

          Now whether that’s “true” or not… well actually, it is though - if you do not approve of actually irl really murdering your landlord, then you are “right-wing”, in comparison to them. Then again, they also say that they love North Korea - but how many of them have actually picked up and moved there, hrm? 🤣

          So I think we are “centrists”, on the global scale. To the left of the Alt-Right, and to the right of the Alt-Left. My language may be odd though.

          To people whose purview pertains to the set of “alternative facts”, whether left or right wing, I simply cannot converse - no matter how hard I’ve tried. However to centrists I seem to have little to no trouble making myself understood, with only the slightest efforts? i.e., anyone at all acting in good faith I can outright enjoy discourse with, while anyone acting in bad faith I cannot.

          So that is my criteria: it has nothing whatsoever to do with “beliefs”, political or religious or cultural or otherwise, and everything to do with attitude, particularly the willingness to converse with compassion or at the very minimum tolerance to others’ POV.

          Does that make sense?