Call me a skeptical, but I feel like reactions like yours are the intended outcome of the article where anger is shifted towards people living in their homes who don't want roommates. And not on the actual problem of people and companies buying up properties without the intention of living in them, but renting them out or as pure investment assets to sit on and leave empty.
idontlikesand
joined 1 year ago
What is most fascinating is they created something that respects the independence of each instance to rule themselves as they see fit regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of that instances beliefs and values, so it's protected from even themselves. That alone shows the ideals of having respect for freedom and independence for any instance and that they support the idea of sovereignty for any that want it.
They are against authoritarian rules if going by the lemmy function with the ease with which individuals can leave instances and create new ones. If the concept of lemmy was applied to countries they would be against the idea of any invasions of sovereign countries, and respect each countries desire for independence and retaining their culture. Even the mechanism of defederation is a endorsement of keeping out invaders and they actively use it, and they'd be very vocal against countries that are invading or planning to invade saying it goes against the concept of the right for countries to rule themselves if they truly bought into the concept of what they created.
Lemmy as a tech is down right anti authoritarian with the power given to the people and built in foundation of ensuring the independence of each instance. Very ironic actually that certain historical figures that they worship would be incredibly against such a movement in real life that threatened their one party state and ease with which people could just leave and create their own nations if they disliked the rulers.
Yeah, article seemed to be asking homeowners if phrased another way is do you want to live with roommates? I think most people if they had the luxury would say no.
Then you got people angry at those people, which may have been the goal of the article to shift focus to also being mad at people living in their homes. As opposed to the biggest contributor of problem being individuals and corporations buying up and hoarding property they don't plan to live in and treat only as investment assets. Those are the areas that need to start having restrictions on.