this was proposed by @t3rmit3@beehaw.org and after some discussion we agree. in t3rmit3’s simple terms:
State-level stuff, ballot measures, etc, no problem, but IMO there’s not going to be any productive discussion of the presidential race right now; there’s still too little information, too many emotions, etc.
the discussions already started about the presidential election will remain open, but in our view sufficient time has been given for venting frustration and expressing emotion about the result. additional discussion is likely to just be nasty and vitriolic as the blame game starts up between Democrats, between progressives and centrists, between identity groups, and so on. we don’t want that and it’s not interesting discussion. it will also be ill-informed discussion until much more in-depth studies are undertaken on the result. and in any case, a far better question than “what went wrong?” (which is beyond the ability of any person on Beehaw to influence) is “what can we do now?” (which people on Beehaw can influence, even in small ways). there are three months before Trump’s second inauguration, and that is vital time for organizing, networking, and workshopping.
we would strongly encourage you to make posts, and off-Beehaw make connections, on those subjects. but at the very least: please don’t post further US presidential stuff–we’ll be removing it.
This comes across as an extremely heavy-handed way of controlling the conversation. I get wanting to keep things civil, but taking a massive world-changing subject completely off the table, a subject that many many many of us clearly want to talk through, is not a reasonable response in my opinion.
Who’s to say some random comment in a random post on the presidential election doesn’t come up with some incredible idea or solution? It’s highly unlikely, but you know we’re real people here, with real thoughts and ideas. You never know where that one good idea will come from, but it definitely won’t be coming from here if you shut down the whole conversation. I understand this is your instance, and you can do what you want with it, but this is a disappointing response to a very live issue.
if someone does this i trust they won’t limit it to a niche social media website with like 500 users, where it will have no actual visibility and will reach exactly zero actual powerbrokers. i don’t think this is a remotely convincing hypothetical, personally, and its logic would extend far beyond talk of the presidential election.
As I said in the next sentence, “it’s highly unlikely, but you know we’re real people here, with real thoughts and ideas.” Lemmy is the only social media I use, period. I don’t contribute to any other social media, so it’s perhaps more likely than you’re thinking, but still, like I said, highly unlikely. Why take the chance?
because you can play meaningless “what if?” games like this forever. at the end of the day you don’t have to be a pessimist to realize the odds of something here changing the world are so minute that it’s fine to put a moratorium on certain kinds of posts. you’re not going to convince me otherwise. and even in the optimistic scenario: virtually all of what’s discussed here, while interesting, is designed to be fleeting and buried. conversations on link aggregators tend to have a shelf-life of no more than a week, and that’s not really where you’re going to find ideas that make change. here the conversations usually die down after an even shorter period (about two days).
frankly: if the next Lenin or whatever is actually on Lemmy, i’d tell them to get a blog instead of hashing it out in link aggregator comment sections. it’s a better use of their time, it’s a better place to test and hone their ideas, and they have actual editorial control over everything.
deleted by creator
i think you’re conflating “having value” with “changing the world” when these are two essentially independent qualities. at no point have we ever sought to “change the world” with this (because we’re five people running this in our spare time, that’s not in our capabilities as people), and from the beginning we’ve said we’d be content with only a handful of people using this place as long as they get something out of doing it (because that’s what we consider valuable, not whether or not this can have sweeping social impact or importance).
I hear you, and agree it’s unlikely that Lemmy will change the world. But frankly I’m surprised how little faith you have in the platform you help moderate. Why are you doing this if you don’t think what happens here matters?
For an example how I would have handled it, the Ten Forward Star Trek community did it right, in my opinion.
Even though small internet forums are politically insignificant in the grand scheme of things, certain behaviors/topics can still be annoying for the people who frequent them. Beehaw as an instance is interested in curating a pleasant experience for their users and are simply following through on that by introducing a temporary break from a topic that’s prone to ragebait until people have had time to calm down.
Thank you, this framing makes sense to me. I still disagree with the ultimate decision, but I understand and appreciate your tone.
if you think something has to arbitrarily “matter” to be socially valuable to do then there’s your problem. in any case, i certainly don’t think the value of this platform rests on “people knifing each other about a presidential election they have very little power over the outcome of.”