Advocating piracy is one thing, but now banning people for believing in copyright? That’s like banning people for following the law. That is banning people for following the law. What gives? And to think a while ago I declared I wouldn’t have any reason to not take their bans (or the motives behind them) seriously.
Are we trying to get world governments to ban Lemmy (or, worse, the fediverse)? Love the administrative decisions or hate them, such decisions will drag down the whole fediverse. Typically sites are defederated to protect the sites defederating them from liability. Will this be an example, or does this, out of convenience, not apply? Are we forgetting a large portion of the fediverse’s demographics consist of artists trying to make a damn living?
Its true, there will probably always be admins and mods, to some extent… but like on the dbzer0 instance, they’re kind of big into having some open, democratic input back toward the behavior of mods and admins… but yeah I wouldn’t say that level of attempting to actually be accountable is common on lemmy in general, so I am overselling it a bit, lol.
At the same time, I stand by the idea that many people just actually cannot comprehend the concept of a non rigid, non totally top down, centralized hierarchy, the concept is not mentally parseable for them.
Which is funny, because even in the most commonly cited examples of such things, like say a military command structure… yeah turns out if you dive into one of those, you often find that its more effective and efficient to give individual units within the larger hierarchy a good deal more leeway and independent decision making autonomy, than it is to keep everything strictly top down… because such a structure can respond better and more quickly when shit goes awry, makes a leadership decapitation strike less devastating, etc etc.
I mean, imma be honest. Hierarchy helps. You need someone up there to see the bigger picture. But you also need enough horizontal movement to be able to execute the piece of it that falls to you.
I am gonna be blunt also, I am one of people who cannot graps actually horizontal structure on bigger tasks etc. I do however get it on smaller scale and with competent people, it’s probably hella more efficient. For example thanks to not overloading someone “up there” with decisions and responsibilities.
Oh I completely agree that certain kinds and degrees of hierarchy are or can be more efficient than… absolutely none.
It very much depends on what the organization is attempting to achieve, what its scope and size are.
Generally speaking, you can’t really achieve too many complex, specific goals… without some manner of organizing your endeavor.
It sounds like, to me at least, you actually do grasp this better than you think you do, realizing that this is actually a complex topic with many potential variables at play.
You wanna learn a martial art?
How to shoot a gun?
Yeah, a fairly strict, top down, rigid hierarchy with strict rules probably makes more sense, because the potential downsides of ‘crowd sourcing’ the learning experience could be literally fatal, and these things are usually done at the scale of 5, 10, 20 people in a class.
But, if you scale that exact same structure all the way up to an entire military, you end up with WW1 style shit where entire divisions are thrown into advancing through a friendly artilery barrage due to poor timing or a delayed message, the overall commander being overwhelmed, the rigidity of strict top down adherence to all orders from superiors and fear of insubordination leading to massive catastrophic self inflicted losses.
Conversely, a very, very poorly coordinated set of guerrilla warfare style, totally autonomous allied fighting forces… might accidentally end up ambusing each other, or each cell decides to attack the same percieved enemy vulnerability at the same time, and then all point fingers at each other when they realize no one is now defending some critical asset or area, which has now been captured or destroyed.
For a business endeavor… very similar dynamics can play out.
Maybe far too much management leads to nothing actually getting done, or even worse, dramaticly expensive projects that end up being a barely functional mess, because everyone is spending more time in meetings than working, constantly having their work and project scope changed, altered, amended…
Or maybe there is too little direction, and everyone is doing neat cool pet projects, but the critical underlying business processes are being neglected or overwhelmed.
It is always a balancing act.
If you have a more lateral, more horizontal org structure… those individual units or components need to be more independently capable, which can be more costly than a more streamlined structure, but it can also be more resilient and flexible overall.
And there probably does still need to be some kind of mechanism for coordinating the overall actions of the units/components.
You’ve also got the whole dynamic of… does your org structure actually promote people to positions of more relative responsibility and power… via merit and actual competency?.. or does it just reward sycophantic ass kissers, or self serving, machiavellian behind the scenes manipulators?
Or, if you have a more diffuse, flat, democratic ‘power structure’… does it spend all of its time debating things and not actually doing anything? or does it have some method of internally regulating that problem?