Think about things from the point of view of someone who has never used Reddit or the fediverse, but you’ve heard about them both from recent news articles and want to see what they are about.

Reddit:- You Google Reddit and your first result is Reddit.com. You click the link and are presented with the front page. You from scroll from a few hours and end up signing up and staying.

Lemmy:- You Google Lemmy and your first result is a wiki article for Lemmy Kilmister… Your second result might be join-lemmy.org, which you’re smart enough to realise it’s probably more likely what the news is about.

You click join-lemmy.org and are presented with a page of information about the fediverse, links to set up a server and pictures of code…

There is very little chance you’re going to investigate further.

If we want the fediverse to replace Reddit then either
A) Lemmy needs to improve its initial impression and Search engine optimization
B) We should be promoting a different platform with a better initial first impression.

I’d recommend kbin personally as it gives the same sort of experience as Reddit from the initial interaction.

  • Metaright@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is that nobody (or at least very few people of actual influence) are legitimately saying that trans people shouldn’t get to exist. I have yet to see any politician, for example, express such a belief.

    • JamesGray@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Michael Knowles called for the “eradication” of transgenderism at CPAC this year. Please shut up (E: corrected the wording he used, because he said “eradication” not just that it shouldn’t exist)

      • Metaright@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was he talking about the people themselves, or the phenomenon of being transgender? That is a very important distinction.

        • JamesGray@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it’s not an important distinction. If you remove the ability of trans people to transition to their identified gender then you’re relegating many of them to suicide.

            • JamesGray@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Trans people exist, so “eradicating” transgenderism only really has a couple options:

              1. detransition all trans people and do not allow any other trans people to transition, socially or medically

              2. kill all trans people

              Maybe if you’re really stretching the definition of “eradicate” you could add an additional option:

              1. remove all trans people from public life, do not allow the discussion of transgenderism or the presence of trans people in public spaces
            • jcrm@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then they don’t transition. Unless you want to make up some imaginary enemy to validate your hate.

        • MrSpArkle
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone said they didn’t want to eradicate Christians, just the phenomenon of being Christian, what would that mean?