Asklemmy

49959 readers

578 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

-14

Is Lemmy Becoming a Hub for Conspiracy Theorists? (kbin.melroy.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Oofnik@kbin.melroy.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Epstein case has a lot of evidence supporting a conspiracy, and I certainly think there is more to it than we know. But in recent days I've seen upvoted comments about (a) the NYC shooter not actually targeting the NFL despite all reporting suggesting otherwise, and (b) that Russia intentionally caused the Earthquake.

I think given the self-selective nature of a federated social network we already need to be vigilant about preventing any kind of 4chanification. I'm not calling for censorship of any kind, but I do find it raises some beige flags for me about Lemmy...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

As far as I understand it, lemmy is a hub for anything and everything anyone wants it to be.

You can block instances, communities, and accounts to resolve the problem as you see it if you wish, but in my opinion the real move is to learn to be able to read anything and everything in order to obtain the widest view possible without allowing it to affect you personally.

I feel that if people learned to respond honestly and rationally without logic fallacies and worrying about things as paltry as votes, then we would be better off ultimately.

That's not to say that it is easy - but I firmly believe it would be beneficial, specifically because I think it would cut down on echo-chamber effects.