What do you think Lemmy is most biased about? Which opinions do you think differ most from the general internet?
(Excluding US politics, due to community rules)
Commonly mentioned biases:
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Pro-Privacy | 2 |
| Left-Wing | 9 |
| Anti-Capitalism | 5 |
| American | 5 |
| Older | 2 |
| Pro-Linux | 3 |
| Tech people | 5 |
| Anti-Ai | 4 |
| Pro-LBTQ+ | 3 |
| Anti religion | 3 |
| Pro-Communism | 3 |
Bonus: Gaming Biases
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Nintendo hate | 3 |
| Pro-SteamDeck | 1 |
| Anti-GOG | 1 |
| PC over console | 1 |
I’ll go first.
- I think there is a strong pro-Linux bias. It wouldn’t surprise me if 40+% use it on here.
- People from the US seem over-represented, but less so compared to Reddit
- There is a far stronger anti-capitalist sentiment on here than other social media
- The average age seems to be much higher. I joined when I was 16 and feel quite young unlike on other social media.
I think you’re right on all these points, though it depends a bit on what part of the Fediverse you’re exposed to.
On the point of anti-capitalism, I agree, but (again, depending on the part of the Fediverse) there’s also an incredibly high amount of open-minded people here, compared to other more mainstream social media (like Reddit). I speak much from my perspective of being from lemmy.zip, which I’m impressed by the healthiness of the community since I joined. But there are also less “healthy” instances like lemmy.ml which is considered by many to be infested with tankies (anti-capitalism?).
And yes, the average age seems to be around mid-30s to me, based solely on how people speak and what they reminisce about.
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
Clearly a severe leftist bias. Not just in the context of US politics.
Lemmy prefers Star Trek over Star Wars.
I’m a both-sides-kind-of-guy on this issue
Unfortunately it’s just harder to be a Star Wars fan since Disney bought it.
Unfortunately it’s just harder to be a Star Wars fan since Disney bought it.
Paramount is trying very hard to create the same difficulty to love Star Trek with their Section 31 movie.
In a rare defense of the movie… It was originally intended to be a miniseries but it got cut down to a movie when Michelle Yeoh won her Oscar and quickly became the most in demand actress for everyone.
While I hated the movie and most aspects, it was very much a compromise on the original vision and was in no way what Paramount was intending to make. It’s hard to tell if it being a show would’ve fixed all the issues with the acting and characters being cringe af but at the very least it probably wouldn’t have had the same pacing issues and extremely rushed writing.
I didn’t make it past 15 minutes of watching it. I bailed when it became immediately obvious this was an attempt at a Star Trek version of Suicide Squad of quirky misfits. That whole concept is not what Section 31 had been sold to us in the various Star Trek series’. What we were expecting were the best minds recruited across Starfleet performing morally questionable actions in service of their (possibly twisted notion) of the “greater good”.
Julian Bashir working for Section 31 had no place in that movie version of the agency of the same name. Nor did Malcolm Reed. The movie version of Section 31 made a joke of 30 years of espionage and political intrigue.
But what about Star Gate?
Touché! I would argue 'Gate has better representation on Lemmy than 'Wars. “Would you not agree, Daniel Jackson?” /Teal’c
I’m more a The Expanse type of person
I’m more a The Expanse type of person
So say we all! Oh wait, that’s a different one too…
Thinking we’re better than everyone who’s still on Reddit
Reddit is full of Russian fuck bots arguing over which chump to pull one over. I don’t think it’s a high bar.
All capitalism is bad, and any attempt to rein it in is failure before any attempts.
I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.
an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship
I’m not feeling rage or hysteria, but I find a number of issues with this “test” that could easily cause frustration with anyone who has major criticisms of capitalism. My response is long not because of some irrational anger, but because things are complex and nuanced.
You consider yourself to be “fairly progressive”? I’m going to give you an analogy. It’s not great, but it hits on a few major issues relevant to your “test”. Imagine a MAGA fan asked you in 2026 to “name a thriving woke government agency” or “a government agency that still advocates for DEI” to make a point about your ideals. How does that sound to you?
First, you’d like argue that the term “woke” and “DEI” means different things to different people. That the term has been transformed into some deranged negatively charged approximation used as almost a slur colloquially. The same is true for “communist/ism” and “socialist/ism”. The current US “powers that be” have taken ownership of terms originally used by progressives. Woke was an “eyes open” state of awareness of the systemic racism baked into society. Now it is often considered “naively believing that forced equality makes things better”. DEI was an attempt to correct these systemic issues by encouraging or even enforcing diversity in groups of people who make decisions and influence decisions. Now it, and I’d argue “Affirmative Action” as well, is starting to mean a movement to “give power/opportunity to people because they are minorities whether or not they are sufficiently qualified”. Understand, I’m not in agreement with the transformation of these terms or the sentiment of the new “meanings” but I see them being used in the US in this manner more often. This makes every conversation confusing if you want to have a legitimate discussion of the ideas. It doesn’t help that the terms socialism and communism were never concrete terms to begin with.
Second, you’d be aware that there is literally a powerful force actively attempting to purge the original concepts of “woke” and “DEI” from government agencies. The current administration is working very hard to sabotage any agencies that recognize inequality or try to diversify. The administration has likely broken the law in its efforts to oust any agency leadership who promote these concepts. The administration wants to make the lives of any workers who agree with those concepts very difficult. Any agencies that are based on those core concepts are being spun down or turned into shells that somehow still have a name that implies they haven’t changed but in reality their leadership is working to ensure that the agency now serves the opposite function.
That’s what it is like being openly socialist or communist in today’s world. Everything bad is “socialist” or “communist” - it has been since the revolution in Russia. People have a knee jerk reaction on hearing those words. It’s strongly associated with North Korea, Stalin, and the CCP. Endless stories of violent authoritarianism, surveillance states, and the suppression of free speech. Tons of media - Animal Farm, 1984. As an aside, consider the violent suppression of climate or pro Palestine protesters, or the use of surveillance technology to spy on citizens… in capitalist nations.
Back to my point - if you are advocating for socialism, the West will work diligently to prop up existing capitalist leadership to prevent your success, possibly even help them rig elections. Propaganda will be spread among your population. If you manage to get elected, expect to be labeled extremist or even terrorist. Expect embargos, sanctions, and other economic warfare. Expect actual terrorists funded by the West to attempt to sabotage your nation. Expect or attempt to perform coups. Lobbyists would be throwing money you desperately need at your nation if it would just capitulate. Yes, even citizens might work against you because they are quite wealthy and powerful and your going to upset that. Or maybe honest citizens who’ve heard capitalism is great and socialism is bad and they don’t want to live in a bad nation. What’s the most effect method to survive a situation like that? You are under siege, paranoid, distrustful, woefully outmatched. Use your authority to defend your ideals and your hold on the government, sell out and become corrupt, or get squeezed out by a political opponent (or ally, trust noone) that is working for and funded by the West looking to restore their influence over your nation. Now you have a dictatorship.
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.
I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.
I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.
If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism. Communism is an economic system. You say you consider yourself a democratic socialist, while there is obviously a bit more nuance, in the absolute basics, that is saying the economic system you believe in is socialism, and the system of governance you believe is a democracy. Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist, it’s true but it doesn’t state your full political beliefs. I obviously don’t speak for the person you are responding to, nor can I assume that they have the same belief about this subject as I do, this is simply my interpretation of the disagreement, and my stance on it.
Additionally, I would like to respond to your earlier mention of asking a communist to give you an example of a communist country that worked out in the end. The reason many people respond negatively to this is because of the history of communism, especially in relation to the US which is where much of Lemmy is from. The US has a history of intentionally destabilizing communist(and socialist) countries, as communism is inherently a threat to a country so heavily built on massive corporations. Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work. Additionally, because this same argument is used so often, it can really begin to grate on someone’s nerves after being asked it over and over again.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism.
It doesn’t technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.
Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist
If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’ Most people understand this to mean that you’re for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you’re saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.
Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work.
While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
No, you didn’t make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.
I unfortunately don’t know how to do the fancy qoute thing, so this won’t look as organized as yours.
“due to its insistence on there being only one political party.” Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party, and to be honest don’t really why that would even have to much of an effect on it. Sure, it makes sense that communism would begin with 1 party in many cases, as it pretty much always requires a revolution of some kind, but if left time, that party would likely split over other issues. The other reason I could see this, is if the country is in a 2 party, or similar system, where 1 party is the communist party, and the other is an anti-communist party of some kind.
“it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.” I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy, though that has more to do with my personal political beliefs, than communism. What I more so disagree with is the bit about other economic systems requiring a government run economy. I feel that if there is a government, and an economy, one will be run by the other.
“If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’” Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.
“When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP.” I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.
“the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.” I already said why I disagree with this, but I should probably say that to me, and I believe most other communists, the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.
“While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded.” I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.
“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.
To do the quote thing, just put a ‘>’ before every paragraph you want to quote.
Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party
I mean, it’s pretty integral to communism. This is how it’s always been done. If you’re going to have the means of production controlled by the state, you can’t have multiple states vying for control of it. Again, point me to a communist state that doesn’t do this.
I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about when you refer to “communism” then. Communism is defined by the fact that the government runs the economy. In Capitalism, private entities control the means of production; in Communism, the government does. That’s the whole point.
Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.
I think you’re falsely assuming there’s a barrier between a governmental system and an economic system. These are always linked. Capitalism and Communism describe the relationship governments and economies should have with one another.
I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.
Then can you point to an actual example of a stable Communist nation that you support? Again, I argue that those that exist have all become dictatorships. You have the burden of bridging theory to real-world example. Communism sounds great on paper; it just consistently fails in implementation.
the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Communism absolutely has a monetary system. The difference is that Socialism is a transition system between Capitalism and a true “stateless” Communist country, which is a flat-out fantasy. Socialism is a mediation ground, in which the government funds certain public institutions that are deemed essential for everyone. Real Communist countries never move past this model; and the most they achieve is an authoritarian state that controls it in limbo. The end goal of Communism has never (and will never) be achieved.
I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.
So what? Communist countries have clearly overcome U.S. interference. The USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, etc, have all survived U.S. interference and achieved their aims as far as establishing a Communist state is concerned. And look at the results.
“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.
Then it would seem our main point of disagreement is that Communism necessitates a single-party system. Again, I ask you to cite me an example wherein this has not occurred. To me, it seems inherent to the system. If you’re going to have a state-run economy, you can’t tolerate multiple political parties, because then who controls the means of production? Multiple political parties wound introduce a level of chaos into the economic system that would simply be intolerable. Suddenly, in a swing election, every industry in the country is controlled by a government that has an entirely different agenda than the last? There’s no way any business could run under such ephemeral rules.
This probably sounds like a dodge of an answer, but…
It depends on the Lemmy instance. Some are anarchistic, some are very left wing anti-establishment, some are hardcore tankies, and I’ve heard somewhere there’s a right-wing instance? Some hate certain technologies, some love those technologies, etc.
I don’t think it’s realistic to lump all Lemmy instances (and users) together under a single ideological umbrella. That’s like lumping everyone from America or any other county together for their opinions.
IMHO Lemmy feels similar to how Reddit felt 10-15 years ago. The community seems closer to my age. The population is smaller. The content is less formulaic.
The biases shown here feel like a distillation of the broader internet (similar to what Reddit used to be). We like animals and nature, we hate intrusive powerful forces like large corporations or invasive governments. We share a shit-post-y sense of humor. We tend to lean left politically. We love to feel like we know more than we actually do.
On any given subject, if you ask “What would the internet think about this?” you will probably find that same opinion reflected strongly here.
The community seems closer to my age.
I feel like the community is split between 25~40s and pre-teens, lol
Though to be fair, it feels like a 70:30 split.
There are a lot of Reddit refugees here. Many came over because Reddit sucks. Others came during the API debacle. Some seem to have come here because they were banned from Reddit due to not really knowing how to follow the social rules of the internet.
The AskLemmy Community, for example, will have posts like this next to each other (if you sort by New):
What’s the biggest issue you’ve seen when someone tried to shift to Linux?
Why do older people say im mature for my age but my friends still say things like hey buddy/pal??
It just struck me from the comments on this thread, but I think there’s a correlation between the feeling of reddit 10-15 years ago and the average age here.
If we go by the estimates that most people are 25-45 around here, that’s all of us that were probably hanging out on early reddit 10-15 years ago. Like, I joined reddit when I was about 17, I’m 33 now and moved here a year ago and definitely feel those early reddit vibes. It feels similar because that was us. Am I talking crazy?
Nah, you are speaking sense. I think Lemmy was really pitched as a Reddit alternative (or at least that was my experience)and it makes sense that the first flood of people who got excited about that are people who miss how Reddit used to feel.
Linux/SteamDeck = Good Anything else = bad
Porn games should be available for all, but GOG sucks because they did something shitty years ago.
The only thing worse than a right winger is the wrong kind of leftist. (I feel this is a global thing not only US)
Anyone who supports the current governments of Russia or China are not really leftists.
I haven’t seen much Zionist propaganda here (unlike major subreddits, for example) and, when it is posted, it’s e-boo’d with downvotes. 👍
World == USA
Incredible US bias here to the point where many discussions completely ignore the existence of the rest of the world.
Lemmy is actually worse than reddit here. The only network that at least tries to be cosmopolitan is Mastodon and that’s why it just feels so much healthier there.
mastodon is the least usable fediverse app, idk how yall get an interesting feed on there, still no quote posts is wild
Since the rules preclude it, we can’t discuss what Lemmy is most biased about. The remaining biases tend to be in the tech/nerdcore genre, which makes sense, since many average Joe users have problems navigating the registration/instance selection process, keeping their numbers down on the platform.
Im still pretty unclear on the whole instance selection thing. I just tried a few until one worked.
If in doubt, just try it until it works. If it still doesnt work either learn why or give up.
The rules specifically target US politics and I feel a lot of political bias on here goes beyond the US IMO.
Holy shit, what aren’t? It would be a shorter list.
The hivemind has a doublethink of “Guns are bad, police should be allowed to confiscate them” and simultaneously “Abolish the police”.
Also, purity testing. The Lemmy hivemind has decreed that: if you haven’t committed an assassination against a dictator, you’re not a leftist, you’re complicit, and you deserve to be oppressed.
From what I’ve seen Lemmy is pro-EU, pro-privacy, pro-Linux, very left-leaning, anti-capitalism, and strongly anti-AI.
I see a lot of disestablishmentarism
Not a whole lot of antidisestablishmentarianism though.
