I disagree with lemmy.world’s decision, for three reasons:
Address problems as they appear - negligence is bad, but so is jumping at the gun.
Locking users out because they’re misbehaving is different than locking them out under the assumption that they’ll misbehave.
Given that lemmy.world is a generic purpose instance, odds are that it would work better by letting users sort themselves out, and only intervene on problems when it is not reasonable to expect users to do so.
I also think that lemmy.world’s current size in comparison with other instances is a bit problematic. It’s great to see instances growing but it would be better if said growth was spread out.
Just my two cents, mind you. I’m from neither instance.
I think the analogy would be more accurate if he was whipping his dong out and throwing shit within his own home. And he can do what he wants there, because it’s not affecting anyone else. Sure, the people in his house can have whatever opinions they want of him, but if he’s cleaned up and dressed before he leaves his house, who cares?
I disagree with lemmy.world’s decision, for three reasons:
I also think that lemmy.world’s current size in comparison with other instances is a bit problematic. It’s great to see instances growing but it would be better if said growth was spread out.
Just my two cents, mind you. I’m from neither instance.
There’s a naked man outside a store, whippin’ his dong around & throwing poo at passersby…
Do you have to let him the store just because he hasn’t actually done any of that stuff inside yet?
Or can you preemptively decide he won’t be allowed inside?
FWIW, I agree with everything you’ve said, just looking for clarification.
I think the analogy would be more accurate if he was whipping his dong out and throwing shit within his own home. And he can do what he wants there, because it’s not affecting anyone else. Sure, the people in his house can have whatever opinions they want of him, but if he’s cleaned up and dressed before he leaves his house, who cares?