Are you only looking at the last 6 months or something? Zoom out to take into account the entire migration from reddit (since that is the topic of this thread). The MAUs peaked last year and the overall trend since has been downward since.

Yes, I'm only looking at the last 6 months, because everyone already knew that the Reddit migration was a freak event. There was going to be a big influx of users followed by many of the new users leaving as things stabilize. Because of that, you have to filter out the Reddit migration and following 2-3 months to get a proper view on the trend of Lemmy's userbase numbers. And from that data it's slowly trending upwards, which is a good position to be in.

Whether they are slightly up over a few recent months is not actually relevant to anything I said, nor does it disprove the claiim that Lemmy is dying.

It is objective fact that it has declined and your own data proves it. The overall trend is downward.

By the logic you're running off of, I can look at Lemmy's entire history and conclude that it's trending upwards because the MAU started out at 0 and it's currently around 113k. You have to put an appropriate range on data or you end up with nonsense conclusions.

You ate trying to cherypick statistics here to push a narrative that anyone can clearly see is false if they just compare the height of Lemmy during the migration when it was the supposed "reddit killer" vs what it is today. It is objective fact that it has declined and your own data proves it. The overall trend is downward.

If you actually look at the numbers in my source, the peak MAU after the Reddit migration was 115k, while it's grown back to 113k as of last month. That's less than a 2% difference, with consistent growth over the past 6 months. Not only that, comments have gone up a lot in comparison to MAU, meaning that those users are also growing more active. These are the objectively factual statistics that you're harping on about, and they point to Lemmy being a in good spot growth-wise.

You are essentially the equivalent of a climate change denier, pretending there is no temperature increase by zooming right in on the most recent data instead of looking at the bigger and more relevant picture.

And here is the unprovoked ad-hominem attack. Dude, you're the one who tossed out a false claim with no data to back it up, and took it personally when someone asked you to back up your claims with a source and a decent argument.

But since you've already brought out the mud-slinging, I'll bring my own: you're behaving like the gamers that claim a single-player game is dead and therefore bad simply because the active playerbase has dropped after two months. Grow up.