this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
9 points (76.5% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

863 readers
15 users here now

The world we live in isn't just dystopic, it isn't just stupid, trying to describe all the ways it sucks just makes for a really boring story.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
electrodynamica@mander.xyz
moderator@mander.xyz
9
Community locking notice (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Sal@mander.xyz to c/aboringdystopia@mander.xyz
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hello all,

This community will be removed from the instance in the near future because it is unmoderated, does not align with the instance's focus, and frequently introduces political content into the local feed, which is contrary to the instance's goal of minimizing political content.

Alternative versions of aboringdystopia are available on other instances:

!aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

!aboringdystopia@lemmy.ml

!aboringdystopia@lemm.ee

I would prefer locking the community to avoid losing visibility of the posts, but unfortunately locking a community is not an available feature.

EDIT: As Trying2KnowMyself pointed out below, it is possible to restrict the community to moderator posts. So, I have done that instead to preserve older content.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Oh come on with this "minimizing political content" nonsense, y'all are a science community and science is being hunted down and destroyed systematically and your response is to try to become less political?

Are you just giving up then?

Or is this place run by scientists foolish enough to be politically conservative and they are being snowflakes about having to hear challenging opinions?

Science is political.

I did not decide it was so, those who want to destroy science did.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The instance has had this policy for over 4 years. The sidebar reads:

The main focus of this instance is the natural sciences, and the scope encompasses all of the STEM fields.

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.

The goal when creating this instance was to a place to discuss about scientific discoveries, post pictures of nature, and have a set of communities for this while avoiding polarizing content. If someone wants to discuss politics they can click on 'All' and go right to it. The scope is explicitly anti-politics because I do not want to moderate a politically charged or polarizing environment, and I know that many people with interests like mine will also appreciate such a space existing because they see enough pictures of Donald Trump and polarizing discussions elsewhere.

y’all are a science community and science is being hunted down and destroyed systematically and your response is to try to become less political?

I do not disagree with you broadly, and that is to an extent why I use common sense and do not enforce the "no politics" rule religiously. There is quite a bit politics that gets through. Although I do prefer to offer users of this instance a politics free experience, if no one complains I usually let it go.

In this case: I have noticed posts in the front page that have nothing to do with science lately, and they came from this specific community. I then saw some US politics characters attached to articles that had nothing to do with science. I looked through the community and most of it is off-topic, so it makes more sense to lock the community.

I'm sorry this upsets you, I should have removed the community as soon as it was created, but I did not realize what it was.

[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm with this instance for as long as you keep it running. I think you take a good approach.

I should have removed the community as soon as it was created, but I did not realize what it was.

I think it's fine to give communities a chance. If it was moderated I might even advocate giving the community a warning. There are ways this community could have been both science and politics even with the boring dystopia theme - a tough intersection, but we have other niche communities. The way submitters didn't played by the rules, and no one was putting an effort into moderating it, so it's left mander's scope. I like that you generally take a lenient approach -- I think that's important for building communities. It's also important to have and enforce some structure that actually maintains the larger community of the instance.

I think you handled it well.

[–] Sal@mander.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Thanks!

The way submitters didn’t played by the rules

It is not that the submitters did not play by the rules. The 'rules' of the instance set the scope of the kind of communities that belong here, but I would not expect users from other instances to be aware of these rules. So, it was a mistake on my end not on any poster's. It would have been better to react sooner, but better now than later.

There are ways this community could have been both science

From the name my impression was that the community was about more aligned with futuristic sci-fi, which would be a bit on the edge of the scope but acceptable.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The scope is explicitly anti-politics because I do not want to moderate a politically charged or polarizing environment

We aren't the ones that made science politically charged or polarizing, the coordinated global movement of rightwing extremists did.

What are you going to do when conservatives force science further into the realm of politics? Stay silent about it here until all the science funding is cut and climate change discussion is barred from public discourse?

Peter, let’s jump right in. The usual stance of scientists is to remain publicly neutral, especially when it comes to political issues. In light of the rising tide of anti-science, do you believe this must now change?

I think it will have to because the attacks are so partisan. No one in science wants to talk about politics, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, red and blue states. Our training says we should be politically neutral, and I support that. But what do you do when the 200,000 needless deaths due to refusing Covid vaccinations overwhelmingly occur in red states? In addition, as the data show: the redder the county, the lower the immunization rate, and the higher the death rate.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11229655/

[–] Sal@mander.xyz -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can have a look at some communities that often have content where science intersects politics:

https://mander.xyz/c/academia https://mander.xyz/c/earthscience https://mander.xyz/c/publichealth

Minimizing politics does not strictly mean being extreme about enforcing the no-politics rule. Posts that are about the interaction between politics and science generally contain enough overlap with science that it is acceptable. But that is not the case in this community, it is mostly general topics and politics.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is an unsustainable moderation policy and philosophy for a community ostensibly about promoting science and scientific discussion.

If anything a hazy acceptance of sommeeeee political content is worse than an attempt at not allowing any at all, which is also not a sustainable moderation policy for a community centered on science.

I don't think you understand, you either fight this head on or you accept that you have lost and science will continue to be dismantled globally and you seem to be stuck in the middle thinking there is another option.