Not sure what you mean. I really want a dev to make a version of Lemmy with Tor federation so we can have a zero-censorship Lemmy cluster. That is definitely true, not false.
According to you, the entire thread is apparently trolling you.
Nope, I don't have a view on "the entire thread" because I don't feel like trying to remember all the comments at once. But I can't remember any replies from people that didn't end up trolling me. So the statement you attribute to me might be true, even though the attribution isn't. Either the entire thread is trolling me, or a large enough portion to drown out the others in my short-term memory right now.
IP bans can be for whatever the site owner wants them for. You can set up or join another site with its own policy.
Sure, but - like so many other things I've felt it was a waste of time to read and reply to in this thread - why are you telling me this?
Lemny instances absolutely do have their own owners.
They can't really have "their own owners" without Tor. They're relying on DNS / IP addresses, which are (successfully) designed to collectivize all ownership of all addresses within them. Tor's onion addresses are the ones designed for individualized ownership.
And any instance can federate with who they like, but that doesn’t mean the instance on the other side has to accept it.
Then change the documentation to explain how, instead of having the docs suggest it can't be done.
Are you implying that no instance should be allowed to reject incoming federation attempts?
Then “authority” is a word of no value or utility by your logic. Indeed, its impossible to not have authority by your logic. Everyone has it.
Everyone has authority, and some of them used to have convenient authority over who could have a savings account, until Bitcoin was invented and made it a lot harder to exercise authority over that.
I'm not asking for a world where nobody has any kind of authority, I'm trying to get a more Bitcoin-like Lemmy brought into the world.
But the only authority actual of any instance on the Fediverse are the instance owners who fund the instance, maintain it, and can terminate the instance if they see fit.
So, mainly the MAGA base's figureheads, right now - they're the ones "printing" the money (funding the instance), clicking the buttons on ICANN screens to keep an instance online (maintaining it), and can terminate the instance if they see fit.
Which seems like it should be recognized as a huge problem by the community, but it's not, because it's just "mainly," and aside from those "main owners" you also have "leftist sub-owners" who right now are allowed by the MAGA base to have an inverse-censorship space (to "prove" the false MAGA point that "leftists are the ones into censorship"), and the censorship fetish is so widespread, plenty of supposed "leftists" seem happy with this "small-scale inverting the censorship," instead of big-scale erasing it.
What I need to understand is how you envision a 0-censorship community working when there’s content that should at all times be censored, like CSAM.
If you mean actual CSAM, just imprison/kill the people making it until there is no more.
If you mean "CSAM" like a girl sending nudes to her boyfriend, then by "should" you mean "could," and then why reply to someone who's clearly more honest?
I don’t hear solutions to these cases, or even an acknowledgement that not all content should be protected from any sort of moderation, just complaints about content being moderated at all.
If you call killing child abusers when there's enough food and everything "moderation" then I'm against moderation.
If you call corporations doing dishonest advertising "moderation" then I'm strictly absolutely against moderation.
If you call imprisoning child abusers, or killing them when there's not enough food, "moderation" then I'm more favorable. That's a weird way to use the term "moderation" but it's fine.
And in the middle ground, if you call "moderation" banning a guy from a Roblox discussion forum for saying his gf sent him nudes while the Roblox discussion forum is funded by Roblox and has no real direct connection to politics / is honestly trying to be a "non-political space" then I don't really care. And I think that would actually be a perfectly fitting example for the definition of the term "moderation."
Furthermore, you keep accusing everyone of arguing in bad faith but we’re all just saying the normal shit every other Lemmy user knows about Lemmy and ActivityPub.
The majority of replies I've gotten have seemed extremely bad-faith, and you denying it is where your reply starts to feel extremely bad-faith too (though it was creeping up to that line from the beginning).
And if I missed some point of yours, which seems like you think most of us are, blame it on laziness or smith, I’m boarding a plane and can’t be bothered
Planes pump pollution directly into the upper atmosphere and waste a lot of non-renewable resources. This ending makes me dislike your comment more than any other in this thread, although there are others that seem more extremely bad-faith.
The point here is that Lemmy instances are not for-profit ventures.
So it took you until now to say that was the point, and you still haven't explained how it is a point here, let alone "the?"
I really don’t get what you even want at this point. Even if a completely uncensored lemmy instances did exist, and was bulletproof against potential government intervention - it would not change how lemmy.world operates.
I want a reddit-style feed with reddit and lemmy.world blocked and nobody who doesn't block anyone blocked. I don't care how lemmy.world operates unless they feel like joining in not banning any people who aren't into people-banning.
It usually refers to people in positions of actual power.
No, but if it did, that would still be irrelevant, since "mod/admin of a large online community" and "ICANN executive" and "President of the United States" are positions (with people in them) of actual power.
Stop being so sensitive.
Why?
I find it hard to believe you could ever cope on a truly free speech instance.
That's dumb - am I allowed to use a stronger word for "dumb" or would I get banned here?
Lemmy doesn’t blacklist these instances. Specific lemmy instances that most people know and use blacklist them.
Then someone should change the docs to explain how to do Tor federation instead of saying it's unsupported
Then, as I said, that's a perception issue you need to work on. I don't believe you, though.
Dude, the entire thread is disagreeing or supposedly “not understanding” you at this point. This really should be an “Am I out of touch?” moment for you.
So manmade flying machines can't exist, because in the past that was the majority opinion? And of course, the first popular religion has never changed?
A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints.
Not clicking your link, but what you quoted here is what a Gish Gallop is, and what the reply I was replying to is (hence why I brought it up)
What's not? Like, what were you referring to?
Myopic
Definition 3: Narrow-minded
So, like "egotistical," I'm not the one being myopic
Also you aren’t really connecting the dots well as to how Lemmy can be censored by corporate authorities, or what specifically those are. Explaining those may help your case.
What dots have I not connected?
These posts have a small audience. I've said that.
In the past, this small audience was on reddit. I've said that.
This audience isn't much bigger than it was on reddit. There's no fundamental difference in how censored you are right now, with Lemmy vs reddit. The authorities have successfully kept your audience about as small as they were successfully able to keep it on reddit. I've said that.
In the future, if Lemmy tries to grow this audience using its current design, it can't really get far past where it was on reddit without the authorities fucking it up by blocking IP addresses and domain names. I've said that.
I don't know what new thing to say to "connect the dots," you're just making me repeat myself.
Edit - no reply, 2 downvotes. Community full of mentally ill bullies who waste time with bullshit, and then run out of bullshit to say and just stop replying, without admitting they were wrong in any way.
Sure, you can say “well, zero censorship except bots” - well that’s censorship, isn’t it? And given no anti-bot tactic is reliable, you’ll be blocking humans.
Yes, but not on purpose - and if done correctly, not in any way that allows systemic censorship of people for their whole lives (which most of us live through today).
Or you can say, “zero censorship except CSAM, or extreme pornography, or anti-terrorist” and you’re either applying societal laws or your own morality on others.
Right, don't do that unless you're just making educational cartoons for very young children or something (definitely not hosting a space for political discussion)
You can’t use “no censor” and “except” in a sentence without contradiction.
I definitely can.
If you want zero censorship, I don’t think Lemmy is for you. I don’t think the fediverse is for you.
Didn't ask.
But if you disagree, then run your own instance and put it on an onion address, please stop trying to rant at us for not sharing your views.
Do you actually think I might be subservient to you, or are you willingly making a pointless suggestion to be annoying?
You just now, in the comment I was replying to, seemed to imply saying "retard" makes someone far-right. Seems like a pretty blatant lie. Not scrolling up to check for others
This statement reveals: either you have me confused with someone more gullible, or you're pathetically addicted to gaslighting.
Also, I thought you were a free speech absolutist?
I don't know what you mean by "free speech absolutist." I just notice that IP address bans should be for filtering bots, not humans; and that we have no infrastructure for organizing political resistance, despite modern technology offering new possibilities there.
Not sure what you mean. I really want a dev to make a version of Lemmy with Tor federation so we can have a zero-censorship Lemmy cluster. That is definitely true, not false.