this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
361 points (91.5% liked)
Fediverse
40438 readers
1286 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes because nothing authoritarian was ever implemented through a vote...
Personally, I voted against on my db0 account, the top voted comments explain pretty thoroughly why.
Voting to block a domain and having that domain blocked isn’t comparable to electing an authoritarian leader. Dbzer0 can choose who to and not to federate with. Users who don’t like that move to another instance easily.
Nobody has said that? What it does is remove the choice from each individual, which is authoritarian, even if done via majority vote. There was nothing stopping those who wanted the domain blocked to do that themselves.
Nobody removed your choice to change servers
It's literally part of the point of the fediverse that you can pick hosts who agree with you, who can apply moderation and bans you agree with on your behalf, and if you disagree you move and bring people with you if you can convince them
Further evidenced by the fact they're posting from their non-db0 account after saying they voted on the topic with their db0 account.
I just don’t see it as authoritarian. Wasn’t on a whim, it was voted, and the majority voted to defederate. Does it remove user choice, sure I guess., but so does any form of moderation.
Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but "people voting for something I don't like" is an especially idiotic way to define it.
You're right, that would be idiotic. Good thing I didn't define authoritarian that way, and no, it is not a meaningless word, you can (in fact) look it up in a dictionary which describes the meaning fairly well.
The linked definition doesn't match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.
Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society
Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.
You didn't define authoritarianism or specifically say how it is so in this case, leaving us to guess and you to say we guessed wrong.