Given the approach/philosophy of Beehaw, I’m kind of confused and surprised by the choice of Lemmy for building this community space. Not that I disagree with it, but it undeniably complicates administration/moderation in a variety of ways thanks to federation (as has become apparent with new Lemmy instances & the population surge) and its modest development only compounds those complications through lack of sufficient tools.
Was this something of a hindsight is 20/20 situation, wherein with more consideration, something else may have been adopted? Or has it been banking on some optimism in federated communities becoming the new norm?
I’ve read over some of the philosophy/thinking posts regarding Beehaw, but so far as I recall this technical choice wasn’t a focal point in them. Sorry if I overlooked some explanations, though!
Was this something of a hindsight is 20/20 situation, wherein with more consideration, something else may have been adopted?
We considered many other problems when in the inception phases and had initially decided to make our own - this did not turn out as we had wanted and so we came back to the drawing board.
Or has it been banking on some optimism in federated communities becoming the new norm?
I would certainly say that some of us have rose tinted glasses for federated communities but it’s certainly not unanimous.
As for whether or not we made the right choice, I don’t know. I do genuinely think there are big problems when it comes to Lemmy’s lack of focus on moderation and some of these are compounded by broken federation.
We’ll likely never know, honestly.
I appreciate that Beehaw stands for greatness beyond the apathy of the 4.5 years of Lemmy established developers who seemingly don’t use Lemmy to discuss Lemmy. “…the opposite of love is not hate – it’s apathy. It’s not giving a damn. If somebody hates me, they must “feel” something … or they couldn’t possibly hate. Therefore, there’s some way in which I can get to them.” ― Leo F. Buscaglia
