Ask Lemmy

I swear there is one dude who is like a frequent news reporter, I see his name nearly all of the time around the instances. But yeah there seems to be just a handful of people who represent the minority that just chat away.

The trick is not to read the usernames. I imagine myself surrounded by millions of mostly sensible people!

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Like the others said, the ratio of posters/lurkers on most social media sites is 10/90, and i think that lemmy is on the better, more active side of things. in a 30k community that means that you will see about 300 people commenting regularly, and 30 of them will be very active.

i also like the smaller scope here, fewer comments mean that my opinion will be engaged with more.

I rarely commented on reddit, because one little comment in a swarm of 2500 will not even be noticed. It's different here, and i wrote over 400 comments this year! i maxed out at about 100 on reddit because my comments wouldn't even be noticed most of the time if i didn't filter by new.

It's a smaller neighborhood here dude.

It’s called a community. If Reddit doesn’t seem like this anymore, it’s because half those people are actually AI.

I can’t speak to Lemmy specifically but my Reddit years were ages 15-30. I think I got my fill of arguing on the internet then.

I write a lot of comments on Lemmy that I end up deleting before posting because I just don’t want the hassle of arguing with someone about it who is being deliberately obtuse or arguing in bad faith.

That’s not an indictment of Lemmy specifically, but I think my lack of interest in those arguments comes with age and I suspect my story isn’t unique, the demographics will line up for a lot of Lemmy users.

Reddit is worse but they use puppet accounts so you can't easily tell.

/TinfoilHat

There's definitely regulars I recognize, but still plenty more I don't.

Because it is dawg.

Total users are like ballpark 1 million, and most don't post much or at all -- e.g the 1-9-90 rule.

By comparison Reddit and twitter are the most trafficed sites on the internet

does that mean i'm famous?! MUM I'M FAMOUS

Smaller community, so the power users (like myself, FlyingSquid, The Picard Maneuver and others) will undoubtedly be more prevalent than the many, many other users that barely post at all.

The ratio of commenter/poster to lurker is always pretty lopsided. I also never read user names.

Honestly, that's one of the cool parts of old internet (forums, chatrooms, etc.) is getting to know people, you get to know the community 😊

Yes. Don’t look at usernames.

Be the shitpost you want to see in the world.

I'm commenting to boost engagement!

Yes. I've been posting to subs around here too. I like it cause everybody will probably see your post and you'll get engagement from real people. We also have common interests on here that things are pretty interesting.

We're looking sat you PugJesus! 😎

I'm not usually an internet commentor, but I try to chip in on Lemmy sometimes. I think most people just treat it like the rest of social media today, where the smart idea is to just lurk

not a bot at least

There's one user that seems to be everywhere and it's probably the same user everyone is thinking of right now lol.

I'm also surprised I come across other "agents" on here more frequently than I would expect.

I use both reddit and lemmy and for the most part, I'll see similar or the same articles shared/posted on both platforms. I don't mind, it actually makes me feel like one day Lemmy might grow enough to the point where I use reddit less and less.

using multiple platforms I see the same users from time to time but I never really cared about who's posting or commenting

I almost never comment on anything. I imagine most users are like me.

Yes, I do see the same names popping up all the time.

What helps me is having the perspective that people change from moment to moment, and we don't see enough moments in a row to pick out a pattern generally. Even if I see the same names, it helps to treat them with new eyes everytime. Also makes it easier to catch someone on a bad day but then have a nice conversation the next.

Small town vibes where you actually recognize people at the grocery store kinda thing.

I'm just here so I don't get fined.

That's very much possible.

That's why I try to be as nice as I can on here.

There are very few times when I initially joined Lemmy where, I admit, I was a bit shitty towards some users (old Reddit habits). This can get you banned, or blocked, or you can build a reputation pretty quickly. And since we're not a lot, that can limit your interactions quite a bit. So I changed my attitude pretty quick. And frankly it's been much more enjoyable this way since.

The majority of individuals on platforms like Lemmy—and social media more broadly—engage almost exclusively as passive consumers. Their involvement often begins and ends with the simple act of upvoting or downvoting content. This limited interaction speaks volumes about the nature of digital engagement, where consuming information or entertainment takes precedence over meaningful interaction or contribution. The absence of deeper engagement is not a failing of the platform itself but a reflection of broader societal tendencies.

People, in general, tend toward passivity, a trait that extends beyond online spaces and into areas like civic participation. In the United States, for example, voter turnout remains notoriously low. People express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, they crave change, and they criticize institutions, yet they shy away from taking the minimal steps required to enact that change, often hiding behind a hand-waving comment involving the words "systemic," "structure," and/or "institutions," a transparent way of excusing their unwillingness to actually act. As though they themselves are not parts of those systems, structures, and institutions. The same individuals who will upvote or downvote content online without a second thought are often the ones who abstain from voting in elections, an "upvote/downvote" that directly impact their lives.

What is even more concerning is that this passivity is not merely a result of laziness or apathy, but something ingrained and encouraged by modern society. Our institutions—whether educational, political, or corporate—tend to value compliance over initiative. Decision-making, once seen as a marker of personal agency and responsibility, is increasingly viewed as a burden. People have been conditioned to prefer being told what to do rather than take responsibility for their choices.

If a decision goes wrong, there's an inherent comfort in being able to place blame on someone else. This social conditioning makes being passive, fading into the wallpaper, not only acceptable but desirable for many. And yet, these same people will often feel deeply dissatisfied with their lives. But, rather than do something about it, they continue to be helpless, wishing someone would decide for them to improve their lives and then forcing them to do it.

While it's easy to express frustration with the passive nature of online participants, it is also, sadly, understandable. They are products of a society that rewards inaction more than action, where engagement is often reduced to the simplest and least effortful gestures. These platforms reflect the broader societal trend toward disengagement from real, consequential decision-making, reinforcing and reflecting a vicious cycle of passive impotence while they wait for someone or something to fix things for them.

Be the change you want to see.

FlyingSquid is our mrbabyman.

Kinda yeah. BUT my comment to lurk ratio is still less than I did on Reddit. So even my few contributions are still more than I ever really did on Reddit.