Fediverse

Of course it's their choice. But I also think some people in some situations should recognize a broader responsibility. Because we get into a larger question of, what happens when the public square is privately owned?

With a website like joinfediverse, that domain becomes a primary resource for people looking to get into decentralized platforms. By not including something, the maintainer is not just making the choice for himself but for every new user who visits the site. That responsibility should be taken seriously and the choice not just made based on personal opinion.

Think of it this way, imagine I made a site called whoshouldIvotefor.com and it would ask you questions and then recommend a political candidate. Sounds like a good idea, right? Now what if I make it so the site always recommends a Republican candidate, and only justifies why the answers you gave to the questions indicate that vote? I'm certainly allowed to do that. Free speech and all. But it could be argued that I also have a responsibility to the voters who come to my site who don't realize it is biased, in that I am pushing my personal opinions on them and causing them to make a decision that they wouldn't have made if they had all the facts.

(Disclaimer- I'm not a Republican, I consider myself liberal-libertarian. I'm using that as an example.)

I am just saying that a site which sets itself up as an authoritative on ramp to the fediverse should try to be unbiased and not based on personal opinions of its editor.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

• Wikipedia

They are suppressing information about the fediverse based on political views. They had it up and then they took it down. Please explain how this is not censorship. I don't know where people get the idea that censorship is an inherently negative thing.

over the developers’ horrible takes

Is that really what all this protest is over? Someone's 'horrible takes'?

Generally fair point. My issue though is that most people will just go to this website and won't consider other lists or websites, viewing this as the definitive list of Fediverse alternatives. Someone not putting someone's software on their website isn't technically censorship, true (this is the other coin of free speech), it does effectively censor Lemmy from the general conversation about Fediverse alternatives.

Because as the leading "Fediverse alternative" website, it essentially tells the viewer that Lemmy doesn't exist, which I think does a disservice to prospective Fediverse users.

But yes good point, anyone can make an alternative website, I think right wing people made like a fuckgab.com site back in the day to recommend Gab alternatives on the Fediverse.

I think it might help if you advertise it more too. I haven't heard of mbin in months and partially assumed it stopped existing

Posts not being marked as read and lack of app support.