Posting this because no one else seems to want to, and it’s a discussion worth having outside of drama or personal conflicts. I’m undecided and can see both sides, but it’s important to address.
Potential benefits of a limit:
- Frequent posters hold significant influence and could, in theory, push misinformation or propaganda (though I haven’t seen evidence of this it’s a fair concern).
- A community dominated by one or two voices might discourage new members from participating.
- Encouraging quality over quantity could increase the value of individual posts.
Potential downsides of a limit:
- Could reduce overall community engagement.
- If set too low, it might discourage meaningful participation from well-intentioned members.
- It could inadvertently encourage the (mis)use of alt accounts.
These are some pros/cons but certainly not all! I encourage more discussion below.
…cool? I never said the bans were effective, so I don’t understand why you’re responding to me as if I did.
I didn’t say anything about UM somehow influencing the American election either
My problem with UM is that they post disingenuously, evidenced by their refusal to actually engage with the content they post when asked about it
Fair enough.
But there is no rule that says people have to engage with the content the post about. In face, the vast majority of posters I see don’t engage much about their posts. Some people like to post shit, then do other things. Not everyone is down for some discussion.
I am allowed to dislike someone for their actions without there being a written rule about it
And I am as well.