Nostr pubkey: npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2
It’s not a lie. You’ve said in other posts that it shouldn’t be removable.
Lying again doesn't stop a lie from being a lie, it's just lying again.
TOR is used for criminal activity.
That is not a question or a reason for asking, but yes.
I don’t get why you think a total lack of moderation in a feed would be so interesting.
I don't. I think a feed that removes spammers like you (and allows all good-faith discussion) would be interesting, and you can easily understand that, but you pretend you "don't get it" because you're very dishonest.
An uncensored feed. You’re not very good at picking up context.
I was making fun of your typo, genius.
I already made it pretty clear I'm not interested in what you pretend an anti-censorship feed would look like.
The fact that the Fediverse is split up into different instances is the improvement in itself.
Nope. Hasn't solved anything so far, due to broken federation.
Plus, there were already separate instances of reddit, using reddit's open source code, if you don't care about federation.
Most of your questions are incoherent or loaded.
Nope. This seems like shallower projection and lazier gaslighting than you've been doing so far.
Presumably by “custom rules” here you mean “not allowing CSAM”.
Nope. Also, not sure you know what "presumably" means.
To the Fediverse. If no-one agrees with you here, you’re going to make no headway.
Why waste time typing this shit though?
How am I an abuser?
You have wasted hours of my day gaslighting me.
What are you implying here?
Nothing. I'll copy and paste what I said, which was explicit, not implicit:
Are you scared in the future, it will be abusers like you who are marginalized and isolated, instead of the people who work on revealing you to the public?
How can a search result disprove a negative?
Not my problem. Why the fuck are you asking me while you keep ignoring me asking you to prove a search result? Why would I have advice for you on some random unrelated shit right now?
Do you actually know what I mean by that?
I'm just reading it as plain English. If you mean something other than what you said, it's not my problem, is there some reason I should give a fuck?
I did.
The question was: "why waste time with this part?"
Where’s your evidence for this claim?
I remember not asking.
And you have suggested it repeatedly in other comments.
Because you have repeatedly injected irrelevant shit I didn't ask about in yours.
But less censored than most places, and they’re a shithole.
Incorrect. Twitter, X, and 4chan so far have all been more censored than most places have been throughout human history, contributing to their shithole statuses.
No, I did not.
Yes you did.
That’s not what I meant.
Didn't ask. Not my problem. Get it looked at by a professional.
You’re just wrong.
Nope.
So now into personal insults, are we?
I don't know, are we? I definitely am.
Have you heard of the burden of proof?
Yes, I mentioned it earlier in this thread. The person it should be on in this context is you, since you're the one making the outlandish claims and offering nothing to back them up.
Okay, that’s not what you seemed to say initially.
Incorrect. You understood me fine, you're just pretending otherwise as a form of gaslighting.
But so how is lemmy.world specifically “run by glowies”?
My understanding is they mainly use keyboard, mouse, and touchscreen for inputs, while using screens to see what they're doing.
Why did you just make me explain that? Dumb as fuck.
“My own poor ability to explain what I mean shouldn’t be clarified. People should just know my clearly bizarre mindset”.
Stop putting your own statements in quote marks, it's weird. And maybe you should stop wasting my time if you can't handle clarifying your own statements.
They aren’t pressured into having rules that they hacvve chosen to have.
Incorrect, as I assumed.
That’s what Lemmy means when they talk about self-hosting.
What I asked was why waste my time with it when I didn't ask. This doesn't seem like a reason.
You seem to be operating under basic definitions of words that no-one else does.
Incorrect. Maybe what you mean to say is I'm one of the few people who still tend to use "literal" and "literally" correctly.
Also, can I add that Reddit - per its own standards, hasn’t failed.
Didn't ask. Why waste time with it?
It’s a massive website with a lot of traffic.
Again, didn't ask. Why waste time typing this?
We think it’s failing, and poisoning the atmosphere - but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a big success.
Again, didn't ask. Why waste the time?
A lot of people on the Fediverse do not aspire to grow to be the size of Reddit, and think thats both unrealistic and undesirable.
Again, didn't ask. Got a reason for typing this, other than to waste my time?
Okay, what other content are people on the Fediverse unable to talk about and share?
What do you mean? People on the Fediverse are able to talk about and share CSAM, so how would stuff they can't be "other content" in the way you used the words in that sentence?
Do you mean "share widely," in which case, you know the answer is everything and it's weird that you'd ask yet another question you know the answer to?
Sorry
For what?
you think that they did want to host CSAM?
Who? I'm not clicking through to your replies in separate tabs anymore, I only see what's in my notifications. This doesn't show me the context of what you're asking here.
You are making assumptions about the lemmy.world admins that are completely groundless.
Can you screenshot a place I've done that and circle the part where I did? No, because you're the one saying shit that's completely groundless.
What “pressure” was imposed on them?
I remember this question being answered where you're asking it. Scroll up.
You made the claims. You back it up.
Why should I? What do you see when you Google it? You keep ignoring these questions, and repeating your suggestion.
The onus is on you to back your claims up in discussions.
That's why I do. And when the onus isn't on me, sometimes I don't. Do you have a point? Is this somehow one of those claims where the onus is on me? If so, what claim (I forgot) and how is the onus on me? And bonus question, do you have any idea why I might have mistakenly not noticed the "onus" in this case?
Are you of the opinion that the US shuts down all sites online no matter where they are from?
Not sure what you're trying to ask. We are currently having this discussion on a website. I've been replying from sh.itjust.works for hours without it being taken down, and I"m pretty sure you've been using that same instance the whole time too. The very conversation we're having makes it pretty clear I could not uphold the opinion that no websites are allowed to be online.
“Yes, hamas.ps was the official website for Hamas until it was taken down sometime after September 2023. The site is no longer publicly accessible.”
Not sure what you're quoting, but sounds true.
Not sure what this has to do with the Fediverse.
Why did you bring it up then?
So nothing that gets what you want then.
What do you mean?
There’s no significant interest in what you want. You are a tiny minority.
You know there is significant interest in what I want. You know we are a significant minority.
I did.
I didn't ask if you asked what I didn't ask.
Do you have an example of a lemmy community shut down by a regulatory body?
Same answer as the other times you asked.
No thanks. Copy and paste if you want.
No thanks. Do it yourself.
The Fediverse existed for disgruntled reddit users.
Didn't ask.
Huh? Community owners (I’m talking about the equivalent of subreddits here can pick the topic and focus of their communities).
Don't get what you're trying to say here.
And in terms of instances, an instance owner can absolutely choose the theme of their instance.
Incorrect. Federation broken, which prevents this. How many times do I have to say this?
There are many different instances with different vibes, aesthetics and political persuasions across the fediverse.
Incorrect. All of them are in the same pro-censorship bubble so far, because Lemmy so far is designed with broken federation to promote that outcome. How many times are you going to make me explain the same shit again?
Those are not rules that /all/ lemmy instances necessarily have. Or have to have. Those were just sh.itjust.works rules.
You also mentioned lemmynsfw.com remember? You can clearly find examples of instance rules yourself, why are you asking me like you have zero examples when you yourself were just mentioning at least 2 instances worth of Lemmy instance rules other than "don't spam?"
I said "something," not "everything."
According to you almost everyone on earth is a “piece of shit” then and that no-one is worth forgiveness for you.
Incorrect, and you seem to have a habit of making up shit to say and adding "according to you" like I'm the one that said it.
Like this is a borderline misanthropic mentality.
Stop being that way, then, I guess.
What if they have relatively urgent business across the world?
As I said, that is what jet engines are appropriate for. Business which is relatively urgent in the context - so, relative to climate change. For example, transporting organs for transplant patients. Not transporting stupid people to stupid shit they have stupidly planned.
So I guess people should just hardly leave their geographical area then.
Correct, as long as people can't figure out a way to do so without accelerating the extinction crisis. Very obvious to anyone sane.
Yes, I do. It guts the business.
No. "The business" is just people. You have to gut the people to literally gut the business. And to proverbially gut the business would be to destroy it, reduce it to almost nothing - the euphemism you're looking for is "under the rug," not "gutted."
You got any data for this claim?
I'm not even checking what claim, let alone checking for data to back it up. You have really proven you're not worth much effort.
Are you alleging that we should allow historical incidents, recordings of CSAM online in the hope, the idea that it would put-off pedophiles from trying to specifically do it to new victims to get their fix?
No, but I feel like you meant to ask if I would allege that, and you misspoke with "are you alleging" because you're extremely bad at typing
So we all have to witness and host CSAM on our websites because of this?
Because of what? You being bad at typing? No, you don't have to do that because of anything, and you being bad at typing doesn't really make anyone do anything except struggle to read what you type
Why?
Because it was pretty eye-opening when I realized manipulation and gaslighting are the only reasons for the English language to use the word "law" as a bridge-synonym between "observable realities of nature" and "shit the authorities say"
Why does taking CSAM down make it harder to “reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified”?
How can you pretend this is a real question? I get that you're just asking dumb questions to gaslight me, but like, doesn't it only take 1 brain cell to figure out that banning the stuff from DNS/IP addresses drives people to use Tor for anonymity and not be public about this stuff? Are you entering new levels of acting brain damaged, as another layer of attempting to gaslight me?
What does that even mean?
Are you asking me for dictionary help again?
Why would it protect abusers?
Again, you have to ask why abusers are protected by concealment?
Well separate from concerns about the account posting it, people find it utterly disgusting and inhumane and don’t want to see it on websites they visit.
I asked why you'd remove it from the internet, not why you wouldn't go to websites with it
You got any data that backs this claim up?
Another question even dumber than most of your extremely dumb questions so far.
So you outright openly pro people’s right to share child porn online.
Correct, but phrased with edgy wording I wouldn't usually use.
Yes, admins would have to put up with that. But normal users of a community don’t want to see it and would expect it removed.
Didn't ask. The question at that part was, should it be you (or people like you) going through it to remove, or people who openly want to see it?
You keep asking me to somehow disprove it.
Incorrect, and why did you put this after a quote of yet another one of my questions you've ignored?
It’s more “know the room”.
No, it was like I said: you seemed to be trying to implicitly suggest argumentum ad populum isn’t a fallacy.
People don’t really prioritise hosting on TOR, and don’t care about your weird desire to see uncensored instances group together.
Incorrect. I am not alone. You should be feeling a lot of embarrassment about these repetitive attempts to gaslight me.
No, it’s not.
Incorrect.
I’ve read your post.
Didn't ask. Did tell you to re-read it since you're still acting like you didn't ever read it.
How is it effective if you’re just one instance and people can quit using your instance if you’re caught moderating it based on bribery?
Are you asking me to help you use a dictionary to check what "effective" means, or are you suggesting modern "law enforcement" is able to catch every criminal before they act (even for crimes they haven't officially banned yet)?
Or, are you just gaslighting and wasting time?
Because you’re pissing in the wind. Almost no-one here wants what you want.
- What is because of this?
- Do I care about whatever that is enough for you to reasonably justify bringing it up?
- And why did you start with "because" while going right after a quote of yet another question you refuse to answer? More gaslighting and wasting time?
You said: “and then the result, where instances/clusters can all be shut down by ICANN any time”
This hasn’t happened, and there’s no good reason to assume it will.
Incorrect. We can safely assume instances will be shut down increasingly often the more instances there are.
Well you’re paranoid about them supposedly doing so despite it not ever being done.
Incorrect. It probably has been done, and if not, that doesn't make my paranoia "despite" it. The paranoia pairs as well with future events as past/present ones.
How on earth is that baiting you to give a reply that could get you banned here?
I said to try on nostr (where I can't be banned), not to try again here. Are you truly very very dumb, not just pretending?
This logic still makes no sense to me.
Didn't ask.
Anyone could start their own instance, and they don’t have to get “approval” from anyone.
Incorrect. Under the current model, federation requires "approval" of other instance admins, as well as the higher authorities that determine what's allowed on DNS/IP addresses. How many times are you going to make me repeat myself?
You said “Yes”, finally, to my question about CSAM and whether or not you think it should be legal.
That's a lie, but why do you put it right after a quote where I asked yet another question you refuse to answer? Is that another layer of dishonesty? Seems like gaslighting
Sorry, you don’t think TOR is ever used to facilitate illegal activity?
I don't get what you're trying to ask, or why. Explain both what and why?
I don’t why you’d think it’d be so interesting.
Hard sentence to parse. You really suck at typing.
It’s just be shitposts and spam and slurs and threats and CSAM.
What is? What is just be that stuff?
You can get close experiences to this on 4chan and Twitter.
Didn't ask, why waste my time with such a pointless suggestion?
The first sentence of this makes the rest of it seem too long to read.
If you want me to read this, could you give me a shorter reply to read first that just addresses something I said quickly and directly?
Yes, it does. Instances can choose to federate with each other, to share content.
But it doesn't work for the advertised / ostensibly intended purpose, of improving on the reddit model. That was the topic. Why do you keep pretending you can't remember anything I've said? Just to gaslight me, right?
I haven’t read how Lemmy distinguishes between instances and communities and how they refer to them.
Didn't ask. Why did you waste my time with this, and why is it right after a part where you quoted me asking yet another question you ignored?
Not supporting TOR federation does not mean an instance owner can’t set out their own custom rules on the instance.
Under the current model, you are incorrect. Not supporting TOR federation does mean an instance owner can’t set out their own custom rules on the instance.
Dear me, it’s just a turn of phrase.
Didn't ask. Why waste my time with this? Just more gaslighting, right?
Almost everyone on the fediverse disagrees with you.
Didn't ask. Why waste my time with this? Just more gaslighting, right?
That’s the relevant demographic here.
To who? To what?
Not to anything I've said. Not to me. Guessing you won't answer to who, or to what, like most of my questions.
By “posting standards” I mean rules of an instance.
Didn't ask. Why waste my time with this part?
If your instance allows abuse, slurs, insults, threats etc - you’ll be marginalised and isolated.
Didn't ask. Why waste my time with this part?
Are you scared in the future, it will be abusers like you who are marginalized and isolated, instead of the people who work on revealing you to the public?
Yep. Can you stop the denialism, or is your brain too broken?
The question was:
Are you asking me to help you use a dictionary to check what “effective” means, or are you suggesting modern “law enforcement” is able to catch every criminal before they act (even for crimes they haven’t officially banned yet)?
Did you mean to answer with "no" / "neither" or something, but fuck up again because you're so bad at typing?
Incorrect. The "or" means the regulatory pressure disproves your statement, even though no governments exist.
Incorrect. Regulatory pressure isn't just burning out or losing interest.
Correct. Governmental bodies, unlike corrupt authorities, would probably never engage in political censorship.
Incorrect.
I didn't ask.
Again, didn't ask.
Nope. Nobody can literally spin up their own instance, and I can't even euphemistically because I'm a targeted individual in the US, as opposed to one of the people who can reliably expect to get away with having a home server.
Correct. That's a very surface-level reason why "self-hosting" isn't a literal statement.
I don't have to go through a background check to do anything.
I also didn't ask.