I suppose this may make sense in the case of something like Mastodon. But something as versatile and customizable as lemmy, which allows for the existence of separate topic-based communities, makes topic-based instances of lemmy not necessary.
Instead of making a new instance for a certain topic, it is usually a much better approach to just create a new community on my current lemmy instance. At least from my perspective as a user.
I find the only exception to this is censorship and moderation. If I, for any reason am unhappy with an instance’s moderation and censorship, then that is the only potential reason I can see to change and make my own.
What does everyone else think of this?
As a newbie, having some way for a community to democratically replace a moderator definitely sounds like it would be an improvement over most (all?) non-federated social media services, but I think there needs to be some kind of election framework for community leadership positions in general, and that would be how bad moderators get replaced. At the very least, I hope any voting would use the STAR method.
@Onihikage @Jake_Farm What is the STAR method?
Sorry for the late reply. STAR stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. The idea is every option is scored by voters from 0-5 stars, and the scores are added up from each voter to get the top two scoring options. Then those two options are ranked according to which was preferred (scored higher than the other) by the greatest number of voters. There’s a website about it, along with entries on Wikipedia and Ballotpedia.