I keep running into comments where users are arguing for avoiding Lemmy, claiming that Lemmy supports authoritarian governments, supports the CCP, sides with Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, denies genocides committed by nominal communist governments, and other similar political claims. I know there are communist instances and whatnot, but I'm well aware that identifying as a communist doesn't mean that someone wants a dictatorial government or denies genocides.
- Can we figure this out and have any supporting evidence either way to end the rumors?
- Is there any evidence that Lemmy is advocating against democracy, pro dictatorships, denying and/or advocating for genocides?
- Is there evidence that using Lemmy supports genocidal aspiring dictators and their accomplices?
- Even if there is one instance that advocates for atrocities, genocides, dictatorships, and clearly false revisions of history, what does that have to do with the Lemmy as a system? Can't those instances just be defederated?
To be 100% clear, I am not a communist, aspiring dictator, or support genocides. I also do not believe that communism = dictatorships and the end of human rights. I believe in democracy, equitable distribution or power, individual human rights and freedoms. If I had to define a personal political identity, I would mostly fall under the term anarchist and do not advocate for violence against innocent people despite their political viewpoints (except Nazis because they're not innocent. Fuck Nazis).
They don't run the social network, they run part of it, lemmy.ml.
Which you actually are federated to in kbin.social just like I am at lemmy.world. Meaning you interact with their users and communities.
This is the whole point of fediverse, nobody exclusively runs it and gets to do whatever the fuck they want with it. They can do whatever they want on their part of the network but if it starts affecting other parts (instances like lemmy.world) they can just cut them off without losing any functionality.
I also expect many many more people contributing to the development of this project as it picks up users. It's necessary, not for political reasons but because the original development team is actually pretty small.
They are the devs that program it all. If this blows up in a way they don't like they could push an update that nukes the whole thing, no?
It's open source and not centrally run. So they can't really "push an update" and even if they could, it would be quite easy to revert and continue development in a different direction.
No, the instance owners would have to manually download and install the update. Which I doubt they will do at the same time especially if there is not something important fixed or added with the update.
instances aren't forced to update, however
if the update nukes an instance, most instances probably just won't update (and someone's likely to fork the lemmy source code)