I don’t like there being forums set to ‘public’ on open platforms that then say if you aren’t in a specific demographic then you aren’t allowed to comment. If you don’t want everyone to comment then set your forum to private so it doesn’t show up in everyone’s feed. Yes, you’ll have fewer people there, but they will be only the people you want.
Setting a group to public, and then telling the general public that it’s actually private, is simply incorrect, and a recipe for a muddled antagonistic mess.
It’s not just targeted at that group, it’s supposedly meant only for that group to be able to participate, so it should be set to private in the community settings. Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
I view plenty of communities I don’t post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I’d still find the discussions interesting. People don’t need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
That’s your choice. It’s a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community’s choice, not yours).
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
I’d have a hard time thinking of any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate. That’s a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it’s been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate.
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to.
To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.
That wasn’t thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that. There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic. Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don’t feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don’t understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don’t know what other comparison to make.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.
I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.
There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.
Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.
Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.
P.s.
Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.
It’s an extremely simple request that literally requires zero work to honor. There is no downside. Keeping it open and easy to find means higher engagement for the community and greater visibility on a safe, inclusive space for women. Feels like an easy w to me.
It requires a change to the whole flow of interaction actually. No other public community requires you to check the rules to see if you’re allowed to post at all.
if you don’t want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno…limit visibility?
It’s not on the community to make it harder for their target audience to find them. It’s on people who scroll the All feed to leave posts alone that don’t concern them.
I don’t see a problem with being public and having limiting rules - it’s perfectly fine for women or minority groups to have their own spaces - but never before have I seen such an odd approach to moderating. I too tumbled on one of their threads from ALL and it felt like at least third of the comments there was responded with, paraphrasing, “please never post again”. If every discussion reaching ALL gets like that, I’d imagine it would be easier to figure out some other solution, since it takes such insane amount of effort to go through so many comments and probably profiles and posting history to know who to reply that to, from moderating perspective. Or are they just saying that to everyone? Or everyone not subbed?? I doubt that many people getting answered with “please never post again” would want to join even if they did qualify…
It’s just… I don’t understand the logistics of all that
If the post is in all it’s in the public forum You don’t get to have your safe space in the public forum. If you say something in public then be prepared. If you want to reach the public because of higher traffic does not mean you can tell people not to respond. I know that people will argue that it’s not fair but it gives off sealioning, im not touching you vibes.
The rules are not displayed in the All feed. Some specific communities are still welcoming of people who are not the topic being discussed.
When you click a post, the rules might be hidden or at the bottom of the page. Do you take the effort to read all of the rules before posting in every community on the All feed?
Do you take the time before voting, since some communities have banned down voting?
When you click a post, the rules might be hidden or at the bottom of the page.
It’s literally the topmost rule of the sidebar. If your client doesn’t display the sidebar properly, that’s on you and your choice of client. Default lemmy-ui displays it just fine.
I guess you haven’t ever used lemmy on a phone or in a narrow window on PC where it is hidden until you click a button to show the sidebar?
I squished it to about a third of my desktop to make it switch from side to button. It is a button on mobile for me both in portrait and landscape.
Plus if you click on the comments indicator it scrolls down to the top comment underneath the button, so you have to scroll up to click it to expand.
I’m just saying it isn’t always directly in the user’s face when they interact with a post and expecting everyone to double check the rules every comment is a bit silly of an expectation.
I guess you haven’t ever used lemmy on a phone or in a narrow window on PC where it is hidden until you click a button to show the sidebar?
I’m grown up enough to just use the Subscribed feed, so I don’t even get posts not targeted at me, and I also am fully able to look up the rules from mobile devices. If that’s such a hassle for you, you’re unsuited for federated platforms where you have to accept to encounter a plethora of rules and posts not targeted at you.
I’m grown up enough to just use the Subscribed feed
L. O. L.
If you have to tell people you’re a grown up because you do something a specific way, or imply that you’d be a child to think or act differently than you do: you’re not a grown up at all, you’re a child in an oversized skin suit.
Do you mean this setting that I have set 99% of the time and I only temporarily switch to All once every couple of weeks to see if any new communities catch my interest?
That setting, right there? Guess I’m an adult except when I’m not!
No true at all. I must at minimum perform the work to stay attentive to the community and its unique rules.
Most community rules can be narrowed down to “don’t be a dick” while a women’s only community also requires one to not have a dick or have one but be transitioning away from having one.
Don’t be a dick. No personal attacks, no aggression, play nice.
And apparently they moved because I had blocked the one on lazy.social and haven’t come across the new one. So even blocking to avoid accidentally breaking rules doesn’t always work.
Guess what? If you accidentally break the rules, the mods will helpfully remove the comment and send you a polite reminder! You won’t even lose karma over it because there is no karma! At worst you’ll experience something women often do in real life: having your voice dismissed.
I think it is hilarious that they have a don’t be a dick rule, it is completely on point. Thank you for the smug explanation about karma that has nothing to do with what we are talking about!
My lamentation for not having built in tools to allow them or myself to manage participation short of blocks and bans is about the lack of tools. There are settings to limit who can post, but as far as I know there aren’t tools to limit participation short of a ban or block. Heck, I would love the ability to set notes that display for me about communities or users as reminders because I would add notes about not commenting or not down voting for the communities that have that as a rule but also have content I want to see.
It is a request in the sidebar/bottom of the page that barely anyone looks at because the vast, vast majority of community rules boil down to ‘don’t be an ass and no porn’.
I’m not opposed to community rules or anything, but saying it requires zero work is wrong because one has to intentionally take the time to check out and remember the rules or voluntarily block to avoid accidentally breaking the rules. It isn’t a lot of work, but it is certainly more than zero.
I blocked to avoid intruding, because of my inability to keep track of community specific rules, so I hope it is successful and supportive as intended. If there was an option to set communities to read only like they are when banned that would be a neat feature.
Which doesn’t appear in anyone’s feed, you only see that when you specifically go to that community’s page. Which is yet another clear factor in why it should be set to private instead of public
Which doesn’t appear in anyone’s feed, you only see that when you specifically go to that community’s page. Which is yet another clear factor in why it should be set to private instead of public
If Fedia has a broken GUI, that’s not their responsibility. It’s the responsibility of All feed users not to badly interact with random posts.
I take issue in general with people who browse the All feed and demand that everyone else bends to them (like the BS demand to make communities non-public) instead of the All feed users taking a few easy steps to behave according to how the fediverse is set up: each space can have their own rules.
That is completely disconnected from this specific Women community. I’ve seen posts in other communities downvoted by people not active there, even though those posts were of interest to subscribers of these communities but ending up buried to subscribers. That’s simply BS behavior. If one scrolls through the All feed, it’s simply on them to A) ignore posts that don’t concern them and B) read the local rules before commenting.
When I click on a post out of the All or Subscribed feed I don’t go to the main community page.
It’s literally the topmost rule of the sidebar. If your client doesn’t display the sidebar properly, that’s on you and your choice of client. Default lemmy-ui displays it just fine.
It’s an extremely simple request that literally requires zero work to honor.
It literally requires every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. Everyone who comes here has to do that, for every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
There is no downside.
There are tons of downsides. All the previously mentioned work, plus all the people who post there and then get reprimanded for it, which causes unpleasant feelings, making people feel excluded from the public space of the fediverse that we want people to feel welcome at, etc i really could keep listing more downsides.
Keeping it open and easy to find means higher engagement for the community and greater visibility on a safe, inclusive space for women.
No, it’s the opposite of that. Keeping it open to people who actually aren’t supposed to engage with the content means it’s always going to be a muddled antagonistic mess.
It literally requires every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. Everyone who comes here has to do that, for every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
The community only excludes men from participating
Seriously, that’s your retort? Ok fine, I’ll rephrase.
It literally requires about half of every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires about half of every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. About half of everyone who comes here has to do that, for about half of every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
Bro is absolutely sick to his stomach and vomiting that this one community isn’t specifically designed for him and that people might have to * gulp * read the sidebar.
Paint it however you want, you cannot change the landscape. If you can only win by imagining your opponent this way, you’ve already lost. Your presence is not enjoyable nor necessary.
I’m actually curious, do you use the browser version or a Lemmy app? I’m on Boost and I would have to click into the community if I wanted to see anything more than its name and instance.
Lots of ways. If they’re interested in women-only topics then all they have to do is goto the searchbar and type “women”. And the community mods can even set the community’s post visibility to public and set the allowed commenters to approved users only. And a bunch of other possible setups too. Basically the only bad way to do it is to set the forum to public, and then tell the entirety of the fediverse they have to treat it like it’s actually set to private
You’ll never get anywhere near the level of interaction making an approved list. it’s a level of trust you have in the platform to respect their safe space. And hey, I blocked them on the third post I saw, so if you’re that bothered it might be a you-problem.
The point of forums is to make a place you’d wanna visit. If enough people want to visit that same place it’s one worth having.
Why even bother commenting without reading other comments on the page? That has been asked and answered 50 times already. Also, don’t be an asshole. Most people here have been talking about the topic, not making snide remarks
Keeping it open means people can find it, and it only excludes men from participating. WomensStuff accepts NBs and transwomen and basically anyone who doesn’t identify as a man. Just because it’s not for men doesn’t mean it’s private.
Lemmy has the ability to set who can create Posts within a community, and there are a lot that only allow the mods to create Posts.
Trying to do the same for comments would require a lot more complexity unless comments were tied to subscriptions. Even then it wouldn’t cover the situation of people wanting to subscribe without being eligible to comment.
To be clear, I do think WomensStuff women only rule is 100% perfectly fine for various reasons and the limitations of the software are the issue.
The software could be changed to facilitate what they want to do, it isn’t like the core design couldn’t handle a feature where people could only comment if they were specifically granted permissions for the community. There could even be permissions on who can vote, like restricting to people who are subscribed and whatnot. The fact that it doesn’t exist yet doesn’t mean it can’t work for the intended purpose.
The reason for being in the fediverse is visibility, same as most other communities.
The underlying issue is one of visibility, and making it more visible could also attract unwanted attention. For example, they could address people like myself who can’t keep track of all the community specific rules by changing their name to something like “WomensStuff (no men)” but that would probably prompt people who would otherwise ignore or block the community to go make a fuss like they are in this post.
They could clarify the reason for the rule, although that does make the rules longer. For example they could include something about the intent being to have discussions from women’s perspectives without them being drowned out when limiting who can comment.
future development doesn’t mean anything in this context, but by all means, open a feature request; I’m sure plenty of communities would welcome features like that!
the problem is the disregard for the design of the platform.
it doesn’t do what they want now, and they need to conform to how the platform works now.
public means public. private means private.
those settings exist for a reason.
if visibility is such a concern, make two communities:
one that is public and allows anyone to participate, and one that is private, invite only.
that last one is obviously what they have tried to recreate here, and it’s not how the platform generally works.
in a traditional forum, this isn’t really an issue, since you’d just have a designated board, clearly separate from others. only lemmy is not a traditional forum. it doesn’t have this separation.
anything that shows up on all is supposed to be fair game for everyone.
if you don’t want that, don’t make it show up in all.
i really don’t care if it’s a womens only, or mens only, or canadians only community. the public feed is not the place for that, and with the current state of the software (which is the only thing of relevance here) what this community wants is not possible.
so either:
find a workaround (that doesn’t annoy the general userbase)
contribute to a technical solution (it is a public repo after all)
use software that actually has the feature you want.
annoying users is generally bad Netiquette. this bad Netiquette is the issue at hand.
not the desire for a designated womens space. i haven’t seen anyone in the thread lamenting that.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use.
it’s not the people pointing out the existence of a designated bbq area that are wrong!
it’s the people ignoring the signs that say “please use the designated area for your bbqs” that are wrong.
The software also doesn’t force people in any community to stay on the topic of that community, that is done through moderation.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use
Actually it is more like having a BBQ competition in the park where only people who registered can participate in the BBQ competition but everyone else is free to watch. To avoid everyone notnin the competition shouting over the people participating in the competition, they told everyone to be quiet and removed those that don’t respect the competition by being quiet.
The problem is that the signs are in the middle of the competing, due to park limitations.
Setting it to private would limit its discoverability for people who are welcome to contribute, which as you say, is about half of all people. Some people like to lurk and read without posting which is perfectly fine and even welcomed. It’s not a private forum, it’s a forum that just asks men not to post.
In terms of how forums work, it is saying it wants to be private but also public. There is no default setting for that, but there are ways to do it that achieve what you want without breaking the public/private system. For instance you can make the forum public, but set it to only allow comments from approved users.
That would be the case if it was private but it’s not. I assume the purpose is to allow for visibility on the conversations happening in women’s spaces. If you only care to listen to conversations you can be a part of, hide the community.
As i just wrote to another user, in terms of how forums work, it is saying it wants to be private but also public. There is no default setting for that, but there are ways to do it that achieve what you want without breaking the public/private system. For instance you can make the forum public, but set it to only allow comments from approved users.
Hey “champ”, i never said it was. I said that the way forums work is that if you set your community to appear in All, then that community is supposed to be for all
Or you could just read and respect the community rules. '“I don’t like it…” and “supposed to be” are just a recipe for getting yourself annoyed over nothing. Let it go.
Beacon has been calm and helpful and has suggested solutions to the problem (the only commenter I’ve seen do that consistently). You immediately jumped to making lazy snide remarks and dismissing people. I think I know who’s more worked up here.
I don’t like there being forums set to ‘public’ on open platforms that then say if you aren’t in a specific demographic then you aren’t allowed to comment. If you don’t want everyone to comment then set your forum to private so it doesn’t show up in everyone’s feed. Yes, you’ll have fewer people there, but they will be only the people you want.
Setting a group to public, and then telling the general public that it’s actually private, is simply incorrect, and a recipe for a muddled antagonistic mess.
It’s not private. It’s just targeted to a demographic .
It’s not just targeted at that group, it’s supposedly meant only for that group to be able to participate, so it should be set to private in the community settings. Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.
I view plenty of communities I don’t post in because I have no relevant knowledge or experience. Even if I were outright excluded from posting I’d still find the discussions interesting. People don’t need to hear my opinion for me to get value out of something.
That’s your choice. It’s a completely different thing.
In fact, we generally consider toxic communities where there is a harsh form of gatekeeping (which in your example would be same result, but the result of the community’s choice, not yours).
Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”
I’d have a hard time thinking of any group I’m a part of that doesn’t have rules around who can participate. That’s a part of maintaining healthy, relevant discussion in a safe space for members, especially when it’s been well documented that this particular group has had their voices overpowered by the group they’re excluding.
We do, look at how many critique posts there are about toxic neckbeard groups, for example about hardcore technical topics where beginners are ridiculed and excluded (i.e., gatekeeping). Or about gym buff communities, where beginners are ignored or made fun of.
Wouldn’t you call those communities toxic?
Rules about who can participate are absolutely fine, necessary even. Generally those rules are based on what you do, not who you are, though.
I believe that forcing to identify yourself in some way and heavy moderation would be enough (moderation based on what you do) for an online community. But anyway, I don’t have a problem with those rules in general. However, in your original comment you compared a community keeping you out to your own restraint into participating in a community you feel you have nothing to contribute to. To go back to my example, there is a huge difference between not participating in a technical post that goes over your head and just reading other people’s opinion vs being banned for having demonstrated to be at a lower level of understanding (gatekeeping).
To address this tiny veiled provocation, I don’t like to participate in communities that gatekeep people, whether I am in the ingroup or not. In fact, I heavily dislike purists in fields I deal with (e.g., selfhosting, tech in general), which is the most common form of gate keeping, and I definitely don’t participate in their communities.
That wasn’t thinly veiled, it was just a provocation.
I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that. There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.
There are toxic groups of all kinds. The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic. Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners. There are lots of communities based around race, gender, illness and disability that exist to support people who don’t feel comfortable talking certain topics outside those groups, usually because of a lack of shared lived experience.
If you don’t understand why groups of people of an identity, who face similar challenges because of that identity, would want to curate their space, I don’t know what other comparison to make.
I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.
Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:
with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).
Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.
I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:
The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.
P.s. Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.
The sidebar also says “this is an inclusive community” followed by a rule that excludes 50% of the planet.
Inclusive of what counts as “woman” and what’s a valid topic. Come on
And probably 80% of the userbase of the platform.
It’s an extremely simple request that literally requires zero work to honor. There is no downside. Keeping it open and easy to find means higher engagement for the community and greater visibility on a safe, inclusive space for women. Feels like an easy w to me.
It requires a change to the whole flow of interaction actually. No other public community requires you to check the rules to see if you’re allowed to post at all.
Conflicted.
On one hand, their playground, their rules.
On other, if you don’t want to interact with half of community, why not just, dunno…limit visibility? Make it actual safe space?
I am good with anything and do respect their choice, just it’s fun to think about.
It’s not on the community to make it harder for their target audience to find them. It’s on people who scroll the All feed to leave posts alone that don’t concern them.
I don’t see a problem with being public and having limiting rules - it’s perfectly fine for women or minority groups to have their own spaces - but never before have I seen such an odd approach to moderating. I too tumbled on one of their threads from ALL and it felt like at least third of the comments there was responded with, paraphrasing, “please never post again”. If every discussion reaching ALL gets like that, I’d imagine it would be easier to figure out some other solution, since it takes such insane amount of effort to go through so many comments and probably profiles and posting history to know who to reply that to, from moderating perspective. Or are they just saying that to everyone? Or everyone not subbed?? I doubt that many people getting answered with “please never post again” would want to join even if they did qualify…
It’s just… I don’t understand the logistics of all that
If the post is in all it’s in the public forum You don’t get to have your safe space in the public forum. If you say something in public then be prepared. If you want to reach the public because of higher traffic does not mean you can tell people not to respond. I know that people will argue that it’s not fair but it gives off sealioning, im not touching you vibes.
The rules are not displayed in the All feed. Some specific communities are still welcoming of people who are not the topic being discussed.
When you click a post, the rules might be hidden or at the bottom of the page. Do you take the effort to read all of the rules before posting in every community on the All feed?
Do you take the time before voting, since some communities have banned down voting?
It’s literally the topmost rule of the sidebar. If your client doesn’t display the sidebar properly, that’s on you and your choice of client. Default lemmy-ui displays it just fine.
I guess you haven’t ever used lemmy on a phone or in a narrow window on PC where it is hidden until you click a button to show the sidebar?
I squished it to about a third of my desktop to make it switch from side to button. It is a button on mobile for me both in portrait and landscape.
Plus if you click on the comments indicator it scrolls down to the top comment underneath the button, so you have to scroll up to click it to expand.
I’m just saying it isn’t always directly in the user’s face when they interact with a post and expecting everyone to double check the rules every comment is a bit silly of an expectation.
I’m grown up enough to just use the Subscribed feed, so I don’t even get posts not targeted at me, and I also am fully able to look up the rules from mobile devices. If that’s such a hassle for you, you’re unsuited for federated platforms where you have to accept to encounter a plethora of rules and posts not targeted at you.
TIL: I’m not a grown up because I use the all feed instead of subscribing to specific communities.
Damn that’s tough.
L. O. L.
If you have to tell people you’re a grown up because you do something a specific way, or imply that you’d be a child to think or act differently than you do: you’re not a grown up at all, you’re a child in an oversized skin suit.
Do you mean this setting that I have set 99% of the time and I only temporarily switch to All once every couple of weeks to see if any new communities catch my interest?
That setting, right there? Guess I’m an adult except when I’m not!
No true at all. I must at minimum perform the work to stay attentive to the community and its unique rules.
Most community rules can be narrowed down to “don’t be a dick” while a women’s only community also requires one to not have a dick or have one but be transitioning away from having one.
The best part is that the second rule of !womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone is:
And apparently they moved because I had blocked the one on lazy.social and haven’t come across the new one. So even blocking to avoid accidentally breaking rules doesn’t always work.
Guess what? If you accidentally break the rules, the mods will helpfully remove the comment and send you a polite reminder! You won’t even lose karma over it because there is no karma! At worst you’ll experience something women often do in real life: having your voice dismissed.
“Having your voice dismissed due to your gender is wrong.”
dismisses your voice due to your gender
I hope that’s not a reason they actually give, because it’s incredibly hypocritical.
I think it is hilarious that they have a don’t be a dick rule, it is completely on point. Thank you for the smug explanation about karma that has nothing to do with what we are talking about!
My lamentation for not having built in tools to allow them or myself to manage participation short of blocks and bans is about the lack of tools. There are settings to limit who can post, but as far as I know there aren’t tools to limit participation short of a ban or block. Heck, I would love the ability to set notes that display for me about communities or users as reminders because I would add notes about not commenting or not down voting for the communities that have that as a rule but also have content I want to see.
It is a request in the sidebar/bottom of the page that barely anyone looks at because the vast, vast majority of community rules boil down to ‘don’t be an ass and no porn’.
I’m not opposed to community rules or anything, but saying it requires zero work is wrong because one has to intentionally take the time to check out and remember the rules or voluntarily block to avoid accidentally breaking the rules. It isn’t a lot of work, but it is certainly more than zero.
I blocked to avoid intruding, because of my inability to keep track of community specific rules, so I hope it is successful and supportive as intended. If there was an option to set communities to read only like they are when banned that would be a neat feature.
Every post I’ve seen has a disclaimer on it. Maybe that’s just certain posters who include the disclaimer in the post, though.
But when I say zero effort, I mean literally it takes zero effort to respect the rule once you’re aware of it.
Remembering all the rules of a massive number of communities takes effort.
And yet, you manage to live in society.
Yes, and trying to remember all of those rules also takes more than zero effort. I regularly forget those rules too!
It’s ok, I like having you around, @spankmonkey. Cheers!
It’s a pinned post:
Which doesn’t appear in anyone’s feed, you only see that when you specifically go to that community’s page. Which is yet another clear factor in why it should be set to private instead of public
If Fedia has a broken GUI, that’s not their responsibility. It’s the responsibility of All feed users not to badly interact with random posts.
I take issue with you defining “being a non-woman and commenting” as “badly interacting.”
I take issue in general with people who browse the All feed and demand that everyone else bends to them (like the BS demand to make communities non-public) instead of the All feed users taking a few easy steps to behave according to how the fediverse is set up: each space can have their own rules.
That is completely disconnected from this specific Women community. I’ve seen posts in other communities downvoted by people not active there, even though those posts were of interest to subscribers of these communities but ending up buried to subscribers. That’s simply BS behavior. If one scrolls through the All feed, it’s simply on them to A) ignore posts that don’t concern them and B) read the local rules before commenting.
No, if you don’t like how a platform works, then that’s the wrong platform for you to use.
When I click on a post out of the All or Subscribed feed I don’t go to the main community page.
It’s literally the topmost rule of the sidebar. If your client doesn’t display the sidebar properly, that’s on you and your choice of client. Default lemmy-ui displays it just fine.
Not on mobile
deleted by creator
Have to click the community, and know to check the sidebar, oh fuck are we back on reddit
It literally requires every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. Everyone who comes here has to do that, for every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
There are tons of downsides. All the previously mentioned work, plus all the people who post there and then get reprimanded for it, which causes unpleasant feelings, making people feel excluded from the public space of the fediverse that we want people to feel welcome at, etc i really could keep listing more downsides.
No, it’s the opposite of that. Keeping it open to people who actually aren’t supposed to engage with the content means it’s always going to be a muddled antagonistic mess.
Feels like an unforced loss for everyone to me.
The community only excludes men from participating
Seriously, that’s your retort? Ok fine, I’ll rephrase.
It literally requires about half of every single person currently on the fediverse to actively block it. And it requires about half of every single new person that arrives in the fediverse to learn about this group, learn about their rule, learn how to block a group, and then go ahead and block it. About half of everyone who comes here has to do that, for about half of every single new user that joins the fediverse. Forever.
And let’s be honest male users are way more than half
So not everyone, just half of everyone. Assuming only half of users are men.
Bro is absolutely sick to his stomach and vomiting that this one community isn’t specifically designed for him and that people might have to * gulp * read the sidebar.
Paint it however you want, you cannot change the landscape. If you can only win by imagining your opponent this way, you’ve already lost. Your presence is not enjoyable nor necessary.
I’ve never seen a community’s sidebar, since I use Lemmy on my phone like probably half of all users.
So do I? It’s very easy to view the sidebar of a community. It’s a good way to get to know them and understand what unique rules they might have.
I’m actually curious, do you use the browser version or a Lemmy app? I’m on Boost and I would have to click into the community if I wanted to see anything more than its name and instance.
I use Voyager and you do have to tap into the community and then I think View Sidebar is an option in another menu
I couldn’t be more clear in my reasoning. If you don’t want to read and reply to what I actually said, then you are the problem.
Yay I love reddit like rules, were so back
How can the 50 percent of new users who should be women find a private-only forum? Feel free to block, no hard feelings.
Lots of ways. If they’re interested in women-only topics then all they have to do is goto the searchbar and type “women”. And the community mods can even set the community’s post visibility to public and set the allowed commenters to approved users only. And a bunch of other possible setups too. Basically the only bad way to do it is to set the forum to public, and then tell the entirety of the fediverse they have to treat it like it’s actually set to private
You’ll never get anywhere near the level of interaction making an approved list. it’s a level of trust you have in the platform to respect their safe space. And hey, I blocked them on the third post I saw, so if you’re that bothered it might be a you-problem.
The point of forums is to make a place you’d wanna visit. If enough people want to visit that same place it’s one worth having.
Jesus, guys, the rule is apparently just like the clitoris: FRONT AND CENTER BUT INVISIBLE!?!?
Why even bother commenting without reading other comments on the page? That has been asked and answered 50 times already. Also, don’t be an asshole. Most people here have been talking about the topic, not making snide remarks
Keeping it open means people can find it, and it only excludes men from participating. WomensStuff accepts NBs and transwomen and basically anyone who doesn’t identify as a man. Just because it’s not for men doesn’t mean it’s private.
In terms of how platforms work, a forum is either set to ‘public’ for everyone, or set to ‘private’ if you want to control who interacts with a forum
Lemmy has the ability to set who can create Posts within a community, and there are a lot that only allow the mods to create Posts.
Trying to do the same for comments would require a lot more complexity unless comments were tied to subscriptions. Even then it wouldn’t cover the situation of people wanting to subscribe without being eligible to comment.
To be clear, I do think WomensStuff women only rule is 100% perfectly fine for various reasons and the limitations of the software are the issue.
i agree with this, but would like to point out:
if the software can’t do what you want it to do…you need to use a different software.
from what i can tell about the community, they really want to be a discord server, but on lemmy…why not just use discord in the first place then?
faulting the general userbase for using the software exactly as intended and then getting mad about it seems…really toxic…and intentionally combative.
The software could be changed to facilitate what they want to do, it isn’t like the core design couldn’t handle a feature where people could only comment if they were specifically granted permissions for the community. There could even be permissions on who can vote, like restricting to people who are subscribed and whatnot. The fact that it doesn’t exist yet doesn’t mean it can’t work for the intended purpose.
The reason for being in the fediverse is visibility, same as most other communities.
The underlying issue is one of visibility, and making it more visible could also attract unwanted attention. For example, they could address people like myself who can’t keep track of all the community specific rules by changing their name to something like “WomensStuff (no men)” but that would probably prompt people who would otherwise ignore or block the community to go make a fuss like they are in this post.
They could clarify the reason for the rule, although that does make the rules longer. For example they could include something about the intent being to have discussions from women’s perspectives without them being drowned out when limiting who can comment.
the point I’m making is:
the software doesn’t do what they want right now.
future development doesn’t mean anything in this context, but by all means, open a feature request; I’m sure plenty of communities would welcome features like that!
the problem is the disregard for the design of the platform.
it doesn’t do what they want now, and they need to conform to how the platform works now.
public means public. private means private.
those settings exist for a reason.
if visibility is such a concern, make two communities:
one that is public and allows anyone to participate, and one that is private, invite only.
that last one is obviously what they have tried to recreate here, and it’s not how the platform generally works.
in a traditional forum, this isn’t really an issue, since you’d just have a designated board, clearly separate from others. only lemmy is not a traditional forum. it doesn’t have this separation.
anything that shows up on all is supposed to be fair game for everyone.
if you don’t want that, don’t make it show up in all.
i really don’t care if it’s a womens only, or mens only, or canadians only community. the public feed is not the place for that, and with the current state of the software (which is the only thing of relevance here) what this community wants is not possible.
so either:
annoying users is generally bad Netiquette. this bad Netiquette is the issue at hand.
not the desire for a designated womens space. i haven’t seen anyone in the thread lamenting that.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use.
it’s not the people pointing out the existence of a designated bbq area that are wrong!
it’s the people ignoring the signs that say “please use the designated area for your bbqs” that are wrong.
The software also doesn’t force people in any community to stay on the topic of that community, that is done through moderation.
Actually it is more like having a BBQ competition in the park where only people who registered can participate in the BBQ competition but everyone else is free to watch. To avoid everyone notnin the competition shouting over the people participating in the competition, they told everyone to be quiet and removed those that don’t respect the competition by being quiet.
The problem is that the signs are in the middle of the competing, due to park limitations.
edit: comment was made with different content in the parent comment.
no, that is very much different.
pie recipes on FuckCars get deleted because of their content, not because of who posted them.
rules are supposed to be for content.
this constitutes a misuse of the rule system.
Setting it to private would limit its discoverability for people who are welcome to contribute, which as you say, is about half of all people. Some people like to lurk and read without posting which is perfectly fine and even welcomed. It’s not a private forum, it’s a forum that just asks men not to post.
In terms of how forums work, it is saying it wants to be private but also public. There is no default setting for that, but there are ways to do it that achieve what you want without breaking the public/private system. For instance you can make the forum public, but set it to only allow comments from approved users.
That would be the case if it was private but it’s not. I assume the purpose is to allow for visibility on the conversations happening in women’s spaces. If you only care to listen to conversations you can be a part of, hide the community.
As i just wrote to another user, in terms of how forums work, it is saying it wants to be private but also public. There is no default setting for that, but there are ways to do it that achieve what you want without breaking the public/private system. For instance you can make the forum public, but set it to only allow comments from approved users.
Not everything is about you, champ.
Hey “champ”, i never said it was. I said that the way forums work is that if you set your community to appear in All, then that community is supposed to be for all
Or you could just read and respect the community rules. '“I don’t like it…” and “supposed to be” are just a recipe for getting yourself annoyed over nothing. Let it go.
Or that forum can just respect the guidelines of Lemmy private/public settings.
And I’m no more worked up about this than you are.
You should send the mods an email.
{looks at rest of thread] Suuure.
Beacon has been calm and helpful and has suggested solutions to the problem (the only commenter I’ve seen do that consistently). You immediately jumped to making lazy snide remarks and dismissing people. I think I know who’s more worked up here.
This opinion is foolish. Just block it if you dont like it.
Why even comment if you didn’t read what you’re replying to?
Or don’t scroll the All feed and complain about / downvote random content you don’t like.