I think something one might learn over time from different sites styled like reddit and lemmy is that they are not monoliths,

There is a comment above that says the same thing, but in practice, think about it like, any give post attracts both people that agree, and disagree with it, generally strongly. The vast majority don't engage with it.

Because of this the opinions seem both stronger, and more common. But realize that any given comment thread is a microscopic percent of even the highly active users, and always a biased sample.

With regards to echo chambers, this is why I personally oppose blocklists or how on reddit you can make something 'private'. Pretending something that is problematic doesn't exist does nothing to deal with the problem. I see this as fundamentally how r/TheDonald came to be, and reedit was fundamental in building the modern white nationalist movement. Through blocking and going private, r/TheDonald shielded itself from outside criticism, so that users didn't see alternative view points, and specifically, were protected from open mockery. Originally the sub started as a troll/ joke but quickly became the defacto headquarters of the largest funnel for white nationalism the internet has ever seen. It might seem a bit over the top, but I argue that Trumps 2016 success would not have happened with out specifically r/TheDonald. Its why all of the 'truth social' and extended media took on a reddit style interactivity. It was the birthplace of the MAGA movement online. They morphed it into a self referential echo chamber, and used purity testing to filter out potential critics. Eventually it was banned entirely, but not until long after the damage was done.

So I don't agree that ideas should be shielded from criticism. The problem with that is without criticisms, they can take hold, and grow legs of their own. But at the same time, you shouldn't make too much of things when you see a strong binary online, because almost any internet discussion will be inherently polar (because only those who agree disagree with a principal or idea will be drawn to discuss it; 95% of everyone else just doesnt care).

I'm a bad fiat actor myself. Nobody believes in my authority. Really though, this is always the same story. "They're all trolls and moderation should be stricter. Also stop using moderation actions against me." Yeah sure boss.

I just got banned from blahaj for suggesting we should show understanding to rightwing people, because they view the left in the same way as we view them. It creates more division for no reason other than being unwilling to communicate.

Reason: Bigot

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're going to find that true almost anywhere online nowadays. I got sick on my birthday last year, and i posted on facebook that I hated being sick on my birthday. So facebook banned me for posting "hate speech." (I'm not even kidding).

And I got banned from Reddit for suggesting that younger generations are more progressive in their views. THAT was apparently the wrong thing to say. I'm not sure why it was so controversial - but it sure pressed someone's button.

thank you, at least someone is saying it.

I don't understand the lemmy but it seems like a big problem with social media platforms are them seemingly acting as a natural monopoly.

Once people are on a specific platform and posting, then even if the platform falls behind or the individuals in power start acting in egregious ways the inertia is enough to keep them going for a very, very long time as the shock of leaving the platform costs an individual user far more than putting up with the stale progress and bad behavior.

Having the 'content' detached and free, accessible to all would seemingly solve this issue. AFAIK lemmy still keeps content proprietary? Just on a decentralized system. Maybe the next step is mandating module[?] transparency for incorporation into the federation.

Or I could be completely wrong and this already happens?