Isn’t it the users that essential keep their instances alive?

“we are willing to cut users that don’t fit with what we are aiming for and think that instances sound have particular goals other then ‘growth’”

  • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    i can understand where they’re coming from

    if your instance was called lemmy.freds.com, and your goal was to create an instance purely for people called fred to use; it would be understandable to remove people who claimed to be called fred, and then it turns out they actually aren’t

    now i don’t know what instance this is, but say it’s lemmy.dbzer0.com - if a user is going around decrying piracy, or reporting copyright infringement on lemmy to authorities; i think it would be reasonable to remove them

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Being in the US doesn’t make you a white male.

        Seems like you’re just trying to drum up drama, tbh

      • Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then you’re better off not using their instance. Forcing instances to host everyone isn’t as open-minded as you think. If lemmy is to be policed and forced-inclusion is to be implemented …. Then lemmy isn’t really free.

        Racism- any “ism” for that matter, sucks, but in a social media atmosphere, provided it’s not physically hurting someone or, targeted harassment towards anyone, should be allowed- or it’s not a free society.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aaaand, the mask comes off.
        “Reverse racism” isn’t a thing, oppressed people are entitled to space away from their oppressors.
        You are not a victim, stop trying to be one because something isn’t for you for a change.