Migrating here (or maybe keeping both) from @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.ml
Will put an eternal curse on your enemies for a Cinemageddon invite.
So it's GUIMP? I thought it was "GNU Image Manipulation Program."
IMO the main advantage that Matrix-Element has for normal users is the branding: Element is Element on the web, Android and iOS.
I agree, though Delta Chat has this too, it's the same on linux/mac/win, android, and iOS. There's also Arcane Chat for android developed by one of the devs of Delta Chat as sort of a testing ground but that's like an if you know you know thing, like my mom just thinks we're all on Delta Chat. One thing is they don't have a web interface afaik, you need the app.
Simple user+password login to a hosted (non-matrixdotorg) server takes 5-6 pages to click through.
And the recovery passwords and all that just seem to be out of reach for those who just use hunter2 for everything, if the complaints I got are indicative if most people.
I was spammed with racist copypasta on XMPP once too. But being in large Matrix chats guarantees being invited/messaged.
Good news for Delta Chat is they don't really do groups like that, you can group chat but it's more for like friends and family than strangers, I see that as a win in this use case, where if we need xmpp/matrix style public groups we can fall back to xmpp. You also have to accept chats before they go through and there is no discoverability so you won't get random drive bys.
They no longer recommend using a traditional email account, instead recommending chatmail servers like these (there's more as well, but they have this small list to choose from in the app or you can bring your own). They say if you have to use traditional email use a dedicated account for delta chat, not one that also gets traditional email.
I like how they are trying to address metadata as much as possible, the onboarding is so easy my literal mother can do it, video/audio calling is in beta and works pretty well (some glitches, but it's in beta), the webXDC stuff is cool but I don't really use it yet, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something.
Personally I like XMPP over Matrix because
- Matrix clients aren't great (even element is buggy as piss on my phone and a shitty electron app on linux)
- Matrix is too difficult for "normal" people (I agree they should get good but they don't and what good is a chat app without recipients).
- Matrix public rooms have a CP problem, and as such I can't recommend people join it just in case, I don't need my mom seeing that shit.
- Matrix was started as an Amdocs project before they defunded it and the lead dev went to form The Matrix Foundation. Amdocs is a Mossad affiliated company that infiltrated American telcom companies long ago. Matrix also pisses metadata to any server it federates with, including matrix [.] org, and I have no proof that Mossad is spying on that metadata but I have no trust either, nor proof that they aren't, so I can't trust matrix anymore.
Though XMPP also has had it's own problems for me, so at the moment it's my fallback and I'm trying out Delta Chat which I have been loving.
Tbf many have hated him since he said that advocating for red flag laws and since he banned bumpstocks which opened up the ATF to regulate things they shouldn't have been (and they've lost a lawsuit over it, so now they no longer are thankfully, but he still opened the door).
I hated him before that tbf but my pro-trump acquaintances started cracking around that time (especially because I was putting pressure on about it lol, calling him a gun grabber and all other manner of true things, did you know he was a lifelong Democrat until he ran betting he could trick the Republicans? Lol)
Now, most of them still say "yeah but the Democrats are worse on gun rights so we can't vote for them" and tbh, they're not entirely wrong, the Dems need to stop shooting themselves in the foot on gun rights 30yr ago, the political landscape would look so much different right now if they hadn't wasted so much time pushing gun owners to the right and not arming themselves (well more accurately convincing their base not to arm themselves, the Dem party members all have guns and/or private security who carries guns because in their mind they're "important" and their base is not.) It would take the Dems a long time of completely reversing their opinion on guns and actually pushing legislature that actually helps gun rights before the 2a supporters are going to trust them again, it can be done, but it'll take at least a decade of consistent pro-2a actions. And it would be beneficial to do so, too, at the moment 2a supporters are pushed right then radicalized while they're there, if gun rights aren't a foothold for them anymore they'll have to work that much harder and it could even be used by the Dems to radicalize those people for good instead of bad.
Having to register
suppressorsblue shit at all is the dumb part. They're required safety equipment in some parts of Europe and Europeans can barely even have guns!Yup! You're spot on.
The distinction is meaningless.
Nonetheless, it seems that my main point has been made, we might just have to agree to disagree on the semantic point.
But by your definition, it is censorship, as it was a government doing it, and it was done without violence, so censorship doesn't need to be violent to be censorship, just repressive, and tankies are repressing the word of dissenters to their favored states (either under the active direction of those states or through propaganda, or by their own free will), meaning their "moderation" is at least only semantically different from censorship (or isn't different at all, if the state is sufficiently involved for you.)
And it still doesn't mean that anyone who gets censored by them is right wing.
Well you wanted to play the game don't get mad when I start playing too.I mean "It's not semantic."So you're telling me, that in the wake of Janet Jackson's titty, CBS/Viacom received or was threatened with police brutality in the form of $550,000 (a small percentage of their yearly revenue)? You think that a large corporation being fined for showing a titty is "police brutality?" That kinda minimizes actual police brutality but go off I guess.
Or that same titty that cost Viacom $550,000 could legally be broadcast in France because they don't have as draconian of tv titty laws like we do, and nobody was threatened with prison time or killed, they were fined. It's not always violence, despite your refusal to accept that you're wrong.
"Anyway, nuh uh," I'm arguing that just because you're
censoredmoderated on lemmy it isn't "because you're right wing" as you suggest, it's more likely because you said something a tankie didn't like. I'm also having fun with the semantics of moderated vs censored but you started that, and the semantics of repression vs violence because you opened it up to that continuation by misconstruing the two, but mainly I'm refuting the former assertion that "they deserved it just becauseof what they were wearingthey must be right wing if an all knowing admin got angwy at them."There is no threat of violence
Lol oh so you're definitely unfamiliar with Hexbear then, threatening violence is one of their favorites.
Regardless, where in definition 1b is violence even mentioned? Actually, nowhere in any of those definitions mentions violence, closest you get is "repression," which can be violent, but isn't by definition, it can be done through other means like propaganda and censorship. Furthermore there's no threat of violence on much censorship, be it corporate, self, or govenment censorship. Sometimes there is sure but often it's something as simple as not wanting to lose your job (corporate) or be ostracized (self), or a simple fine (government). If the FCC catches you saying no-no words on the radio they don't threaten your life, they threaten to fine you or suspend/remove your license, if you show Janet Jackson's titty on television you and Janet don't get tortured, CBS gets fined $550,000.
and the moderated are still able to make their statements on other, equally-federated platforms.
And those censored by nation-states are often still able to make their statements in other nation-states, but they've still been censored.
I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I'm saying your premise of "if you've been
censored(moderated if you insist on distinction idgaf) on lemmy you're clearly right wing and probably deserved it" is verifiably false.And that you're probably one of them, if you parrot the same lines they do, of course. If you're not maybe reflect on why you parrot their lines, perhaps you've been duped into thinking anyone who criticizes moderation on lemmy is a right wing troll just because they use a word that is basically synonymous when abused except "state."
Btw note definition 1b. Would you say a concentrated team of admins and moderators with an agenda silencing those who oppose it fits that definition? I would.
By "abuse disguised as dissent" do you mean it's abuse to refute tankie propaganda and the bans for doing it (the tankies suppressing it) are then justified? 'Cause..
Like I said in my previous comment, seems like you've been moderated for reasons other than your viewpoint.
Like I said in a previous comment, it seems you're unfamiliar with the entirety of .ml, lemmygrad, and hexbear. Or you support their moderation tactics, and "anyone who dared speak against them must be a right wing troll who deserved it" which coincidentally is what they say any time they ban someone for not praising the CCP or the russians in Ukraine, coincidence? I think not, too many of them around here for that.
Tbf, some of them may be doing it at the behest of some government, it just might not be yours.
But really this is a semantic issue when the real outcome is the same: suppression of dissent. You can pretend you just "didn't mention" abuse of moderation all you want but this being lemmy, it would have been a good idea when it's such a prevalent problem, so I'm inclined to believe that rather than simply neglecting to mention it, like many others here you possibly support or endorse it. You also employ the often used tactic of calling everyone who considers this "abuse of moderation" a form of censorship "right wing" which just so happens to be on page two of the tankie handbook, so I'm even further inclined to believe that you're just aligned with them.
Lemmy has moderation, not censorship. And the fact that you're being moderated is a big old red flag. To wit: I've never seen this complaint from anyone outside the right-wing.
So you're unfamiliar with !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works then? Never seen someone banned for having the gall to speak against Stalin or the CCP, or any other wrongthink according to the Marxist-leninists that run .ml, grad, and bear? You must be new here, or agree with that as "moderation not censorship" because you are a tankie too, or have decided to classify Marxist-Leninist tankies as right wing because "left only when good," or think "right wing is when call out leftists on their bullshit," I'm just curious which applies.
I think "terrific shows" was supposed to be facetious, as most of those are not terrific shows. I think the gag was "they cancelled us to make way for all of this bullshit nobody liked."
Which tbf fits their modus operandi, they cancelled King of the Hill 4 episodes early to run the fucking cleveland show.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
True, though I can't help but wonder where the accompanying comic is that implies there's a sizeable group of people who see men as just dumb bank accounts who only want sex and are pigs, and how that comic would be perceived as opposed to this one.
I'm betting the author didn't make said comic and anyone who posted it if it were made would be called an incel immediately, but who knows.
Hey I get that reference!