Come one come all to the Lemmy-verse! It's nice and cozy here, we do have some "bad parts of town" but you can do an instance block and not deal with them lol
For your memes we have !memes@lemmy.world if you like sciency posts mander.xyz has some excellent communities (communities=subreddits) like !science@mander.xyz and !biology@mander.xyz and for a meme science combo theres always the fantastic !science_memes@mander.xyz
You can also drop a shit(post) off at !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or hang out at !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone (though you do have to post before you leave that one!)
There's much more around as well!
Obligatory, fuck Spez
I just think there's a contradiction in a) continuing to use a platform that is developed primarily by Communists and b) thinking that the platform being associated with Communists "actively harmful to the reputation of the Lemmyverse". The fact is that the Lemmyverse is associated with Communists - or "tankies" as you insist on calling them - and so if that's its reputation then the reputation is accurate.
there's no contradiction, because the developer does not matter. that's the entire point of FOSS.
it could be written by a literal nazi (not that there's a big difference between brown and red fascists) and it wouldn't matter one bit.
that's the entire beauty of FOSS!
we ALL own the code.
if Dessalines ever stops developing it, anyone can take over.
if Dessalines implements code the community at large doesn't like, anyone can create a fork and change that specific part and continue from there.
we can see exactly what the code does, and can create new versions at any point.
that was always the reason behind decentralized, open source networks:
nobody can own it.
No you don't. As a user, you don't get a share of the copyright of free software, you get a license (permission) from the copyright owner. The copyright owner owns the code, not all of you.
i mean...yeah? kinda? on a technicality?
you assert the first part as fact and then kinda skip over the second part...at least that's how i read your comment.
yes, the copyright owner (the creator) "owns" the work...but then immediately uses said ownership to explicitly allow everyone else to do just about anything with it, short of claiming it as one's own creation.
you are the best kind of correct, but only that kind.