No, I don't. If it's about instances I'd understand it a bit more, even though I wouldn't entirely agree with that either (I'm a free speech stan), but this is a page listing Fediverse alternative software. The software is fine and relatively untainted from the intentions of the Lemmy devs from what I can tell (although that was not originally the case). They deserved to be criticized, but not censored from Fediverse articles listing alternatives to big tech platforms.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 2 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

It's not "censorship" when somebody decides to omit a software from a curated list over the developers' horrible takes. See also Soapbox.

Edited to add: Free speech does not obligate anybody to boost or acknowledge subjects that they disagree with.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 7 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Wikipedia

They are suppressing information about the fediverse based on political views. They had it up and then they took it down. Please explain how this is not censorship. I don't know where people get the idea that censorship is an inherently negative thing.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah you're right of course, it is censorship. It just happens to be positive. Although, I'd argue that maybe it isn't based on political or religious views, rather on not wanting to give someone a bad impression of the fediverse and make them leave again? As in, self-serving interests?

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 12 hours ago

I'd argue that maybe it isn't based on political or religious views

The main argument I see against Lemmy devs is that they're "tankies", which is most certainly political. And I agree. Except that there's nothing in the software itself that is political. Only the devs, and many of the .ml communities and users.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth -2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

In the encyclopedic sense, you're right. In this context that I replied to, however, censorship had a negative connotation, and my response spoke to that rather than the formal meaning.

I don't know where people get the idea that censorship is an inherently negative thing.

Right, and I do note that you talk about jointhefediverse "suppressing" Lemmy — another negative connotation.

I'll maintain that, no, they are just leaving it out. Again, that is the privilege of a list curator. Nobody else have a say in what and why is included on the site. Choosing what to publish, and the omissions that entails, are also protected by free speech.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

that is the privilege of a list curator.

It can be their privilege and also be censorship. You seem to imply otherwise.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Do I? You seem to enjoy pedantic hairsplitting, but I fail to see where you're going with this.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 4 hours ago

Yes you do

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

over the developers’ horrible takes

Is that really what all this protest is over? Someone's 'horrible takes'?

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Well, horrible genocide apology takes, TBF. I didn't mean to downplay the gravity of the points they bring up in the archived mastodon thread.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago

Yea, but that kinda nails the pettyness of it, doesn't it? They don't even gain anything by having people adopt their software, nor do they suffer a loss by a boycott - and it's all because they have some questionable (to put it charitably) opinions about an entirely unrelated political issue.

The thing that gets me is that launching this diatribe over the developer's political opinions on an open sourced project that's built specifically so that no one group or person has control over the platform - that you have complete control over the instances you federate with - ends up looking an awful lot like protesting public libraries over providing access to 'woke' books.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Generally fair point. My issue though is that most people will just go to this website and won't consider other lists or websites, viewing this as the definitive list of Fediverse alternatives. Someone not putting someone's software on their website isn't technically censorship, true (this is the other coin of free speech), it does effectively censor Lemmy from the general conversation about Fediverse alternatives.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Do most people go to jointhefediverse, though? Honest question, I don't know the site's traffic stats vs fediverse.to or fediverse.party (which both show up way above jointhefediverse in my duckduckgo search). It's not like an authoritative index or search engine blackballed Lemmy, it is literally about a single grassroots site.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 2 points 6 hours ago

It's the first one I always see whenever I look up lists of Fediverse alternatives and I always end up on the site. I use fedidb.org but I don't use it to find Fediverse software.

[–] kat@orbi.camp 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Lemmy is bigger by a LOT (LIKE A LOT) than mbin and piefed. So don't see how Lemmy is losing the strong grip it already has on this type of fediverse. Heck, google reddit alternatives and Lemmy is also king.

This change on that site was in 2023. It's 2025. So it has not impacted Lemmy's user base.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 2 points 20 hours ago

Another good point 👍🏾

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

How is this censorship though?

You can always start joinfediversefreespeechstan.io or whatever. The code is even available, no?

I could never understand american-style preference for "free speech" themed theatrics.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Because as the leading "Fediverse alternative" website, it essentially tells the viewer that Lemmy doesn't exist, which I think does a disservice to prospective Fediverse users.

But yes good point, anyone can make an alternative website, I think right wing people made like a fuckgab.com site back in the day to recommend Gab alternatives on the Fediverse.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works -3 points 22 hours ago

Where does it say "Lemmy doesn't exist"? The admins of the site are well within their right to curate what service they include. I say this as someone who uses Lemmy a lot and really wants there to be a non-corporate, competition-focused alternative (instances, UIs) to reddit specifically and oligarch run social networks in general.

I don't understand how "censorship" plays into this (beyond shallow polemical grandstanding). Where is the censorship?