I have seen many comments saying that lemmy.world sucks, and sh.itjust.works is good. I have seen that lemmy.world apparently has a very poor reputation among other instances. Why? After a quick look, sh.itjust.works doesn't look much different to me. Can anyone explain?

Edit: many good replies. the conclusion I'm drawing is that for my purposes it doesn't really matter. I appreciate everyone who responded

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee -1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It doesn't, except for the ones who like to browse local. And the .world admins have quite a few blocked instances. They seem to be a bit too liberal in defederating to my tastes. I feel as if it runs against the concept of federation itself.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

The people in the early days of Fediverse who came up with cringey and misleading fediverse admins made a lot of claims that weren't true. Like that here no one can censor (moderate) you and that it's a freeze peach bastion. Both of these are not true at all. ActivityPub federation isn't about no rules, freedom of speech, or lack of censoring. It's about sites and services cooperating and inter-operating. Freedom of speech isn't a goal of the fediverse, (alt-right trolls, transphobes, extremists need to be banned to have healthy communities) nor is it about not being able to be moderated. It is about websites to be able to cooperate and interoperate and share their content automatically with each others users.

If you wanted something for free speech and un-governability this isn't it. You're probably better off on Nostr. Until you realize how awful that actually is (even EH realized that hence why hilariouschaos.com exists).

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I feel as if it runs against the concept of federation itself.

So, you believe that operating a website using Lemmy obligates you to host content from other sites that you don't want to have a relationship with?

Because the concept of 'federation' does not come with the expectation that you abandon editorial control over what you host. That's an expectation you're projecting on it.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee -2 points 4 days ago

No one is obligated to do anything. The admins run the site and they can moderate how they feel. As a user, I can join their site or another one if I choose to.

My opinion of defederating is that it should only be used as a last resort. Taking a liberal approach to defederation means that a small amount of bad faith actors can completely shut down an instance and make it a pariah on the fediverse.

[–] celeste@kbin.earth 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think that having a choice about what instance you join and whether it's liberal or conserative about defederating is the beauty of federation. someone might want to be on an instance that's quick on the trigger about banning for transphobia, racism, etc, because they're going through some shit in their lives, and later want to experience the greater variety of an instance where banning takes more consideration.

Like, I think you're right about what you want for you, but people wanting different things and being able to get it is pretty great.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 0 points 4 days ago

I agree, it's a useful feature for certain people. I'm just not a big fan of site admins making the decision for you. It should only be used as a last resort IMO or to protect yourself against illegal content, CP for example. Normalizing defederation between instances can be abused by a small amount of bad faith actors. If you as a person don't like a certain culture on an instance or community, just block it yourself.