Nostr pubkey: npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2
No thanks.
Server admins can host their own instances when Tor support is added, though.
Why would I look it up for you in response to that? It’s not like what I’ve said is some wild hard to believe shit where you could think I’m trying to embarrass you or waste your time looking it up.
You made the claims. You back it up. Where is your evidence that Lemmy instance owners are appointed by the
This seems non-sequitur. How does this answer, actually answer? What am I missing? (Nothing, you're just doing a gish gallop of nonsense, and it was non-sequitur as it seemed)
You alleged the US government appointed lemmy instances owners.
No. I have been clear, repeatedly, the US does not exactly have a "government" and Lemmy instances do not exactly have "owners." Stop gaslighting and trying to confuse people.
No, why?
So they don’t answer to the US government. You should try to understand more about the instances on here you seek to chastise
What do you mean, and again, how is it an answer?
Because you keep bringing it up. You are essentially complaining about two separate things in your OP, one current - and one hypothetical.
Where did I ever once bring up what I asked why you were bringing up at this part? And what was it again? I forgot
No, you have noticed that instances have their own terms of service and you don’t like that
Incorrect. I have noticed, and don't like, that instances with their own terms of service can't federate. Why are you acting like you can't read?
and that hypothetically Lemmy instances could be shut down by government bodies in the future due to the system.
Incorrect. As I have been repeatedly saying this whole time, the impact is today, not in the future. There are already Lemmy instances being blocked from federating today. Government bodies would never contribute to this for any reason I can imagine.
Two separate things.
The two things you made up are separate, but why?
No, why?
Go add Tor support, it’s a better use of your time, https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy
Incorrect. Sharing important information online is a good use of my time. Contributing code to non-P2P internet stuff is a bad use of my time. Bad is worse than good. "Better" is the opposite of "worse."
Or add to the docs how each individual instance can connect over Tor.
That's more in line with what would be a good use of my time, but wouldn't it be more fitting for someone who has the information on hand to do it?
Like, if you're about to explain it to me so I can copy and paste your explanation into the docs, why not just put it in the docs yourself?
I didn't ask. Why are you wasting my time with this reply? The thread is downvoted to shit, does it even serve as an echo chamber for you anymore? I guess it does because you psychologically enjoy dogpiling on someone more honest than you
BREAKING: Fake commie threatens real commie with violence on the internet (this has never happened across all internet discussions)
You just made the claim that "you make a claim, you provide proof" is how burden of proof works, and didn't provide proof for it. You refuted yourself.
You also said "that's", where "that" was supposed to be my comment you were replying to, but my comment didn't say that. I never said "burden of proof is a term for how every statement should always be backed up by proof." My comment was about how you tried to shift burden of proof onto me in an insane context.
The fact that your core statement is a refutation of itself should make me laugh, but the vote scores reveal I'm surrounded by mentally ill bullies here, and a few minutes on Google can reveal we still have the atmospheric lead and maskless COVID spread that you all probably got this brain damage from (I say with not necessarily any burden of proof because, like other things we've discussed, you are free to Google it), so this just scares me.
That question baits me to say something I could get banned for here. If your goal is actually to learn something and not just get me banned, try asking me on nostr.
For real though?
Does a person arguing in good faith really, truly make you assume they're bad with euphemisms?
Either that's a perception issue you need to work on, or you're not being entirely sincere.
Yeah, you are using the word “authority” in an idiosyncratic way. That is not how it used.
Nope, I am not using the word "authority" in an idiosyncratic way. The way I am using it is how it is used.
Are you trying to gaslight me, or what?
Yes, instance owners tend to have to listen to their audiences if they wish to maintain usage of their communities. This is just a negotiation that happens in life in general. Any service provider will have to account for what their audience wants, or they won’t have an audience. And presumably - they do want an audience in most classes.
Why did you add this whole paragraph after the part about how "authority" is used, when it has nothing to do with the conversation?
Its also true that most instance owners set up their own rules from their own choices, unrelated to the crowd shouting at them.
I didn't say it is. Are my replies different on your screen or something?
There almost certainly are “anti-censorship” instances, but they are all blacklisted - so you will have to find them.
Why? What's your train of thought from my post saying "we need a version of Lemmy that doesn't blacklist them" to you being like "this guy will have to find them?"
Didn't ask a single thing answered by anything you just said. Why do you say these things?
I am not.
Seems like another lie.
I never meant that the app has to, the user can too.
I don't believe you. If true, advice: better phrasing in future disagreements.
No, but then the individual lemmy instances would have to bodge tor support, as I have been trying to say. And since they very likely don’t, tor based federation wouldn’t work with those instances.
Didn't ask.
It does.
Yep.
You need to define “fully working state”.
Since the context was a tool designed to improve reddit's model by giving clones the ability to "federate" with each other, I guess a "fully working state" would be one where improvement from the reddit model cannot be furthered by adding more ability for clones to "federate" with each other.
Not necessarily. It could be possible to use standard IP addresses directly instead of domain names. In fact odds are good that would work already.
Is this a gish gallop, or do you think IP addresses are like Onion addresses instead of DNS?
That’s overly simplistic. Under a substantially sensorial authority the “average joe” would out of necessity, become such a nerd.
That's what I'm hoping, yes. There's also the risk that the planet is just going extinct instead. You can't just wish for the best and take it for granted. Freedom isn't free.
It’s not Reddit. The difference is, democratic censorship vs corporate censorship. Reddit users have no real power over what gets censored or not. On Lemmy they do. If your instance censors something you want to see, there’s little friction in moving to another one.
If Lemmy users aren't using Tor, then they aren't coordinating to take any authority away from the corporations.
I don't know how many times you people are going to make me repeat this.
First you were on a small corner of reddit, which was a small corner of the internet, which was a small corner of the screens.
Then the internet got bigger, and reddit got bigger, and now Lemmy is that size corner.
Then Lemmy will either stay this size, or fragment again when it gets bigger.
Without Tor, there's zero difference.
That’s a big difference.
Nope.
Unless you think people are owed reach and exposure to a broad platform. In that case yes all censorship is suppressing your right to be heard by everyone in the world.
To be clear you don’t have that right.
Again, not making sense, just trying to reframe things in a way where you can insult me.
Censorship isn’t the only way to differentiate from Reddit. Lemmy is also different in countless other ways; Algorithms and advertising to begin with. It’s myopic and supremely egotistical to think your one idea is the only difference that matters.
Incorrect. I'm not the one being egotistical and, depending what "myopic" means, probably not that either. I am focusing on what matters, you are not.
Why are you asking me if I recognize a valid dictionary definition I've said nothing to indicate I wouldn't recognize?
Bad faith, that's why.
Personally I use other platforms for uncensored discussions.
No you don't. We use other platforms for less censored discussions. Maybe you use nostr like me but that doesn't mean either of us has overcome this era of censorship.
Unfortunately they’re filled with insufferable twats like yourself, but that’s the price we pay for free speech.
Yep.
It’s obvious for everybody except for you, that Lemmy isn’t intended as a free speech platform, but a means to form your own community based on shared interests and values.
This is self-contradictory. Which is it?
Not intended for free speech?
Or indeed intended for free speech (freedom to form your own community (discussion space) based on shared interests and values)?
If you want free speech, hop on Simplex where you can yell racial slurs until you’ve satisfied yourself.
Simplex isn't what I use for free speech, nostr is, and my slurs are generally not racial.
How would you even use Simplex for more free speech? Does it have group chats or something? (I don't actually care, I'm just mildly confused)
Or spin up your own lemmy instance. I’d be happy to join and engage in some debates.
I will not be spinning up instances of anything. I will seed hashes in bittorrent-like P2P networks, I will put my posts where they fit, I will look for posts from others in the most anti-censorship ways I can find, and I will hope devs and server admins create a version of Lemmy that's fitting for more of my posts - while hurrying toward a possible future where Tor isn't enough to make Lemmy relevant anymore, because P2P networks become the only place worth posting anything.
Are you referring to moderators and admins as “the authorities?”
Are you asking if moderators and admins are all of the authorities, or some of the authorities?
I'd just answer the question, but you don't seem to be discussing this in good faith, and I feel like you might ignore part of my answer to focus on a "yes" or "no" part that lets you reframe it as "all of these people are mods+admins" / "none of these people are mods+admins"
I already acknowledged that moderation exists, but the idea of the government censoring Lemmy is baseless.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I agree it's baseless to say a government would censor Lemmy. Censorship of political discussion seems like it could only happen when you give authority to criminals who don't believe in governance. Having a real government should actually prevent it, if we had one.
However, I am repeatedly pointing out that the authorities we do have do censor Lemmy, which is true.
You have provided no evidence that instance admins “answer to” the President or “ICANN”, or are placed at his whim. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That is an insane position. You can look it up and you shouldn't even need to. Why is your default stance that it's not true and you won't look it up, placing the burden of proof on me? Why would I look it up for you in response to that? It's not like what I've said is some wild hard to believe shit where you could think I'm trying to embarrass you or waste your time looking it up.
Are you claiming that the US government issues orders to the instance owners of piefed.social, feddit.org and lemmy.zip?
I am not claiming that any particular individual is issuing orders to individual Lemmy instance admins.
I am also not claiming that there is a "US government," or that any Lemmy instance has particular "owners."
Why do you ask?
You know that these instances are both owned and hosted by non-americans, right?
No, why?
I can believe that nazis should be banned by the fediverse and oppose hypothetical government control of the fediverse, you know. These aren’t mutually incompatible positions.
OK. Why do you bring it up though?
And yes, I suppose sites can be taken down for child porn hosting. So? That seems like a good thing to me.
But I didn't ask if you think it's a good thing. I'm tired of hearing about people paying for ambulance rides and not organizing any resistance. I want communication infrastructure. I've noticed a fundamental systemic problem with Lemmy. I know that problem exists because people like you think of it as a good thing. I addressed that in my main post. It seems like there is no point to your reply except to bother me out of hostility.
The “zero censorship” instances that you say can’t exist would be blocked anyway by the bulk of the fediverse, rendering them completely mute.
If by "the bulk of the fediverse" you meant "all users except the first person who started the first one," then you are wrong both about what "the bulk of" means (a majority, but not one as extreme as all but one of billions of people) and what would happen with a zero-censorship Lemmy network (the bulk of people would block it, not an all-but-one version of "the bulk")
If by "the bulk of the fediverse" you meant "the bulk of the fediverse" then you must have meant something different from "completely mute" when you said "completely mute." Maybe you meant "censored enough to please me, but still leave me feeling anxious enough to feel the need to exaggerate"
Regardless, these are all pretty simple words, why do you have to use them wrong? Please try to reply to me using words correctly. Be literal here. We don't agree, I'm not bantering for fun, I'm trying to discuss the real world.
Your definition of “authorities” also seems to be literally anyone with moderating power or influence. This is not a concept on shared ground.
The dictionary is more than enough shared ground for me. My simple way of defining "authorities" would be "those who are given authority," which I'm sure is not in conflict with the dictionary.
Actual governing bodies are not preventing “free speech” instances from popping up. They would only intervene currently if those instances played host to child pornographic content, terrorism plots and maybe piracy proliferation.
So you're saying there's a big network of instances with child porn, terrorism plots, and piracy, but the authorities haven't decided yet to crack down?
Or you're saying you've used Wonder Woman's rope on every server admin to get the true answer why they don't run Lemmy instances that allow child porn, terrorism plots, and piracy, and not a single one of them said "it would get blocked," and when you asked "so you think it wouldn't get blocked?" they were all like "maybe it wouldn't, I have other reasons for not trying it"
Or is this yet another reply I have to deal with from someone engaging in bad faith, making me explain/repeat stuff that shouldn't need so much explanation/repetition?
You are lying about your previous lies, and then stating unrelated facts to confuse people.
To be clear for others reading this: "you run the tor binary" doesn't mean "the app runs the tor binary" it means you, the user on the system. Lemmy doesn't need Tor built-in to use Tor, and while the user I'm replying to is trying to confuse you, their explanation in this comment does match that reality
I didn't mean to give any specific examples, future or present. If you cannot see examples today, showing them to you does nothing, you're fundamentally misunderstanding something and need to be shown how to see the examples, not simply told what they are.
If you know what "censored by the authorities" means - simple words, middle-school-level at the worst - you can see the examples for yourself. We're both adults.
I get that the censorship fetish can make you enjoy it when you see a human banned, but you have to learn to use words correctly and tell the truth. Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean the person isn't censored. Just because you are one of the people giving the authorities their authority, doesn't mean it's not authority and they're not authorities.
I'm not sure. Maybe you know I deserve recognition for arguing in good faith, and your comments on "taking words literally" are you struggling to convey that while you yourself find good-faith discussion difficult. Or maybe you just enjoy gaslighting people who are more honest than you, and the comments on "taking words literally" are succeeding as intended when they make me feel disrespected instead of recognized.
We all have actual regulatory power as humans. Humanity collectively is the world's decision-making regulatory body right now. Politicians aren't a different species from you. And not only that, but we live in the era where this is fucking commonly understood, where we use a language with the word "democracy" and everything, so why does this have to be another point of contention? Seems like you're doing a gish gallop, confirming that probably what you mean about the "taking words literally" is just gaslighting.
But that's neither of the possibilities I presented (which would kinda justify your overall point), nor a third possibility that somehow justifies your overall point, right?
It's not an assumption, I've stated pretty clearly that I'm aware censoring humans is bad.