Some will cheer, some will be mildly disappointed. But I'm out, I think.
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
307 points (96.4% liked)
Fediverse memes
3305 readers
257 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
- Memes should not be personal attacks towards other users
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
- This is not the place to start flamewars between Lemmy, Mbin and Piefed.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is your point seriously that the people who aren't active don't influence the the fediverse as much as people who are?
That's really weird, and if you just think about that for a minute you should see why that's weird.
Like, imagine there's an election and the board of elections was suddenly like "welp, according to this chart, a lot of registered voters don't regularly vote, so it's unfair to let some voters who vote in every election have a disproportionate impact on the election results. Therefore, we're canceling voting."
if a minority of 40% can dictate an election outcome over the remaining 60%, some of whom didn't vote - that's not democracy, that's First-Past-The-Post, and I don't need to bring up british politics to explain why that doesn't work.
You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.
But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.
Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I'm advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion
Yes, you're totally right, as long as we restrict everyone's voting rights, then it'll be fair! /s
You're advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won't personally be affected by it.
I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable
This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there's an arbitrary limit for no reason.
And if you think the fact that some people don't vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you're frankly an idiot. If that's what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.