Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist. At the same time, numerous human rights organizations have documented that Zionist policies and actions amount to crimes against humanity (e.g., forced displacement, collective punishment, apartheid).
If banning opposition to crimes against humanity is itself anti-humanity, doesn’t that make lemmy.world complicit? How do you reconcile defending a platform that silences critics while atrocities continue?
What I don’t really get though is that if an instance is well federated, then you aren’t interacting with people who are just on a subset of instances. So how does such an instance have a vibe?
Having a mix of people commenting with different viewpoints already contributes to this, but there’s also many people that scroll locally exclusively. There’s also differences in admins and moderators, their rules and preferences, etc. This itself forms its own culture. It isn’t the absence of culture, but the presence of a unique, blended culture, which isn’t inherently better or worse.
.world is widely federated, but it also selectively defederates from communist instances, and bans people for being too critical of Zionism. This influences Lemmy.world’s culture greatly despite relatively broad federation.