A divided web
The internet was once a vibrant and diverse landscape of communities, where people from different backgrounds and with different interests could come together to share ideas and learn from each other.
In recent years, however, this landscape has changed dramatically. Communities have become increasingly polarized and sensitive, with technical merit, creativity, and genuine discussion taking a backseat to ideological purity tests.
Politics over software
we dont have interest because alt right propaganda.png
>What's the difference between something that's alt right propaganda and something that isn't alt-right propaganda?
One stark example of this phenomenon is the Alpine Linux XLibre controversy from June 2025, where a package maintainer's political views explicitly overrode technical considerations.
During a discussion about including XLibre (a fork of X.org), Alpine developer Ariadne made their position crystal clear: "if anyone merges xlibre i will be pursuing a code of conduct violation against them... because the xlibre project represents an unacceptable ideology."
When other users tried to focus on the software itself, they were shut down immediately. One developer noted it wasn't about software at all: "this is about politics, not just software." Another claimed that "refusing to engage with politics is de facto supporting the status quo, which is a political position."
The technical discussion was derailed entirely. Instead of evaluating XLibre's code quality, security implications, or maintenance burden, the conversation centered on:
- The fork author's previous "CoC violations"
- Whether the project represented "conspiracy theories"
- Ideological purity rather than software merit
This incident perfectly illustrates how good code contributions are rejected over the author's unrelated opinions, turning technical spaces into political battlegrounds.
Gatekeeping over ideas
Ideological gatekeeping has become more common in online communities, but it's not limited to high-profile projects. Even casual spaces suffer from this disease.
average discord server rules.png
>Who in their right mind would write something like this and not think "this doesn't sound bizarre at all!"
Consider the modern Discord server, drowning in unnecessary rules that would make a corporate HR department blush. Here's some rules where common sense should suffice, for example:
- "Be respectful" (redundant - basic human decency)
- "No inappropriate language" (subjective and infantilizing)
- "Stay on topic" (kills natural conversation flow)
- "No alts" (unenforceable against bad actors, only punishes honest users)
When these rules are enforced mechanically, creativity dies. Real conversations shift and flow naturally - forcing rigid topic adherence turns dynamic chat into sterile, compartmentalized exchanges.
The gatekeeping paradox emerges: rules designed to improve communities often destroy what made them worth joining in the first place.
The Echo Chamber Effect
The echo chamber effect is another consequence of polarization.
When communities become ideologically homogeneous, they stagnate because:
- No diverse perspectives exist to challenge assumptions
- Innovation slows to a crawl
- Insider language, unspoken rules, and hair-trigger reactions develop
Users learn to self-censor rather than risk ideological violations. The Alpine Linux chat shows this perfectly - when someone questioned the political focus, they were immediately dismissed as "wilfully obtuse and blind to reality."
This makes it harder for outsiders to join, contribute, or even feel welcome.
The Rule Multiplication Problem
Modern communities suffer from rule multiplication syndrome - the belief that more rules automatically create better spaces. This manifests in:
Redundant Restrictions: Ten rules that could be summarized as "don't be an asshole"
Enforcement Theater: Moderators policing minor infractions while real problems fester
Bureaucratic Drift: Energy spent on rule enforcement rather than actual community building
The irony? Bad actors ignore rules anyway. Heavy rule systems only constrain good-faith participants while giving genuine troublemakers a roadmap of exactly which boundaries to test.
The Cost of Polarization
The costs of this shift are devastating:
Talent: Skilled contributors are pushed away by ideological tests rather than welcomed for their abilities.
Innovation: Progress slows as ideas are filtered through political correctness rather than technical merit.
Resilience: Communities become brittle, unable to adapt when their ideological assumptions are challenged.
Authenticity: Natural human interaction is replaced by performative rule-following.
The internet itself becomes less interesting, less creative, and less human.
The Corporate Platform Problem
This decay is accelerated by centralization onto corporate platforms like Discord, where users become accustomed to:
- Heavy-handed moderation as the norm
- Rigid channel structures that kill conversation flow
- Terms of service that can eliminate communities overnight
- Surveillance and data harvesting disguised as "safety"
Users trapped in these walled gardens lose the skills and desire for self-determination. They become dependent on corporate babysitting, then demand the same restrictive environment everywhere else.
Rebuilding Vibrancy
So how do we rebuild internet communities and restore their former diversity?
The answer lies in creating spaces that value diversity of thought and encourage constructive engagement over ideological conformity.
That requires:
- Technical merit over political alignment: Judge contributions by their quality, not their author's opinions
- Minimal, sensible rules: Trust human judgment over bureaucratic processes
- Decentralized platforms: Self-hosted services that communities control themselves
- Tolerance for discomfort: Allow challenging ideas rather than creating echo chambers
- Natural conversation flow: Let discussions evolve organically instead of forcing rigid categorization
The path forward
Polarization, rule-fetishism, and platform centralization threaten the openness that once defined the internet. The Alpine Linux incident shows how far we've fallen - technical discussions derailed by political purity tests, with dissenters dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
If we want to restore the internet's creative potential, communities must choose substance over safety-ism, merit over ideology, and human judgment over algorithmic enforcement.
The internet can once again be a dynamic platform for innovation, creativity, and genuine human connection — but only if we reject the forces trying to domesticate it into corporate-friendly compliance.
