Gorgritch_Umie_Killa

Ha! The discoursive whiplash would be immense.

But i have the impression the people over at beehaw don’t wish to interact in such an open way as many other instances do.

So the decision to disengage should be treated as equally as important as those wishing to interact?

Responded to ferk, but i’s trying to consider your comment as well.

Okay, i think i’ve understood what you’re saying here. I’m not sure it works with the example for Beehaw.

I think i get what you’re saying. Especially if i consider a large instance like LW’s point of view. A large/general instance where large numbers of disparately opinioned users have gathered, freedom of association must necessarily be more individual to the user themselves than the instance as any kind of individualised entity.

Remembering the comments around the beehaw defederation, this was a case where a group of like minded people on their instance acted as a group to disassociate from the wider basket of instances. Their instance has an individual identity they wished to protect.

I feel like the discussion assumes an individual users wish for seemless interactions is more important than the wish of other users to have the choice of non-interaction. I think the assumption should be they are equally as important?

@blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com

I prefer the recommendation algorithm led by my fellow up/down voters. Anything else, i know of, which is not much, runs too great a risk of undetectable pernicious influence.

I’m pretty sure that was Beehaw’s decision to disengage. But thats freedom of association for ya.