this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
293 points (90.8% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6593 readers
2 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I was Reddit earlier and viewing one of question subs. The top 5 comments were all 'jokes'.

What's worse is no matter how unfunny the top jokes are you'll get hundreds of cold comments flogging the joke to death.

The 6th top comment actually answered the question.

Lemmy may not have as much content but what is here is so much better quality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

in reddit someone argued that Lemmy isn't user friendly because you have to make several accounts in several 'instance' thingy's and thus not practical at all. tbh if it takes unpracticality to fend off those single braincell people then all the better: might as well require 2fa and an iris scan just to post a comment or sign in smh

[–] Maximilious@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

An argument against that is that typically the only need for multiple accounts is if a specific instance has defederated against another instance. In most cases those defederated instances are hosting hostile or pedo content. Good riddance!

[–] iraq_lobster@slrpnk.net 0 points 11 months ago

all instances dont upgrade their Lemmy version at the same time: sometimes a spare account is required to keep browsing Lemmy. Also some servers become sluggish when they become popular and have high usercount. I always prefer to sign up to the next newest and smallest instance out there: that way i keep browsing Lemmy smoothly. And also yea: multiples accounts spare me also the Lemmy drama of federation/defedaration.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)