There are a lot of small websites on the Internet: Interesting websites, beautiful websites, unique websites.
Unfortunately they are incredibly hard to find. You cannot find them on Google or Reddit, and while you can stumble onto them with my search engine, it is not in a very directed fashion.
It is an unfortunate state of affairs. Even if you do not particularly care for becoming the next big thing, it’s still discouraging to put work into a website and get next to no traffic beyond the usual bots.
Even if the post is true, it was the worst way to present it. It reads like trolling:
Call out people’s politics with grandiose rhetoric, not backing up any claims with links to evidence.
Declare the other side is unbiased.
I mean, Internet 101 would dictate you downvote and disengage. It’s not going to generate a discussion that would change minds or be constructive. Even now we’re not talking about small website discoverability, but instead downvotes.
EDIT: I’m going to put my money where my mouth is. I’ll try the same post.
If you’d like evidence of the toxic or extreme side of Lemmy, it’s not hard to find. Are we really disagreeing that this is a problem with Lemmy? Regardless, you’re misrepresenting OP with the “declare the other side is unbiased”.
This conversation started started with pushing back on the idea of using Lemmy as a solution to small site discoverability. The toxicity and social aspects are perfectly relevant.
right right. Totally agree. The community here hurts it’s discoverability. My criticism is only in the way to the post was worded.
I had this big explanation, but I realized it’s not worth it. I already covered what I wanted to say.