Edit: Shit, I probably should have made the title plural - “Does Lemmy need charters?”

From the great discussion below, some clarifying thoughts:

  • Not advocating for a SINGLE charter, and less of a system and more of a… convention.
  • In my universe, groups of instances could get together and come up with some common governing strategies that set them apart from other instances.
  • Given common strategies, other instances can opt in to get in on that sweet, ethical branding.
  • What I sketched out below was thinking specifically around what a single charter could look like addressing the immediate issues facing Lemmy to date. A prototype for the convention, even.

/Edit

Looooong time r/all lurker here, something like 10+ years on reddit with maybe 10 comments. I’ve seen a lot go down.

I’m seeing a lot of hand wringing around defederating Meta, Threads, and even handling problematic instances within the Lemmyverse itself.

It’s tiring to see these things come into consideration on a case by case basis, completely decontextualized from earlier crises. And the patterns are all too familiar - the big ones lately have been around (to name a few things):

  • Adopt-Extend-Extinguish (https://lemmy.world/post/467454)
  • the corrosion of commercialization
  • the never-ending gyre of “Free Speech” vs The Overton Window (nazis are bad, vaccines are good)

This definitely isn’t a new idea, but at in these early days of the Lemmyverse, we can take our collective past experiences, good and bad, on other social media networks, and define some sort of Lemmy charter that sets standards for ethos and quality control. I’ll start:

  1. Don’t federate with for-profit or commercial institutions
  2. TBD

Because we’re done with the for-profit, commercial web, right? In the last couple of days, my brain has taken all the all the Lemmy posts and comments on the subject, mashed it all up, distilled it, and keeps coming back to this idea of non-profit/non-commercial entities.

but y tho?

Because loose, institutional underpinnings could, like a mycelial network, feed the Lemmyverse. And mycelial networks are dope.

Here’s a proposed methodology:

  • Initial Core* Lemmy instances define a charter of guidelines about behavior, ethos, standards
  • Lemmy instances that adopt the charter get known as “Charter Instances”
  • Charter instances have a say in the upkeep and development of Charter… things.

*We’d have to think about what that initial “Core” means - maybe the first X instances to have reached Y number of users? Beyond bragging rights that They Were There when the charter was created, no other special status would be conferred.

And because I’m an anarcho-syndicalist:

  • Charter status is basically just a blue checkmark that just says “hey, we’re cool, folks”
  • An instance can walk away from the charter, no biggie
  • Charter instances can determine if another instance is violating the charter and take away their status, or choose to update the charter to be inclusive
  • Instances wouldn’t be limited to just the charter for guiding principles once adopted, instances can do whatever
  • The charter should probably be Super High Level, descriptive rather than prescriptive, to allow communities decide how to interpret and implement

And because I have ADHD, and this is currently over-stimulating my brain:

  • Different charters developed by different communities! Mix and match! Merge!
  • Creation of a Charter .org non-profit foundation that provides material support to new or struggling instances!
    • and compensation for software maintainers!
    • and legal support when necessary!
    • and maybe maintains the technical specification of what makes a lemmy a lemmy!

Alright, ADHD has run its course. Back to lurking for another 10 years.

  • Brad Ganley@toad.work
    English
    0·
    1 year ago

    I’m going to be honest, that sounds like we’d just be inventing something for people to get mad about. The entire ethos of decentralization is for that sort of arrangement to not be a thing. Either the charter would have nobody to enforce it OR you’d have to centralize authority.

    What you’re describing works for various instances to form a sort of collective with shared ideals but projecting that onto the entire network is antithetical to the entire idea here.

    Also, and this is nitpicky, I admit-- You’re not in the Lemmyverse. You’re in the Fediverse, a space in which lemmy is a very new and small part.

    • karmiclychee @sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      True, I specifically called out the Lemmyverse, versus the Fediverse, however. In this moment, the Lemmyverse feels like a crucible of “now what?” where there’s room for something like this.

      To clarify, in my head, I couldn’t, nor wouldn’t imagine all Lemmy instances to adopt a single charter, but to have the concept floating around in the space - take it or leave it.

      [disclaimer: I don’t know how to talk about this stuff without sounding like a Pollyanna, but I’m actually a “hope for the best prepare for the worst” sort of cynic]

      You could have one charter developed by a group of instances that are committed to being inclusive, diverse spaces.

      1. The charter org would need to have a good reputation of member instances following the spirit (or letter, if that’s their thing) of whatever (laws, guides, mission statement, whatever)
      2. Adopting the charter, a staying a member instance indicates to people looking for safe, inclusive, diverse spaces that “hey, let’s give this one a shot”
      3. If a member acts in bad faith, the charter org can do what they will to uphold their reputation. If the charter org itself has shenanigans, they lose that reputation (and members)

      I’m thinking about this like a Syndicalist/Confederalist - administrative organizations (interest groups) form as necessary, and dissolve when their function has run its course.