Nostr pubkey: npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2
So you don’t know what they’ll actually look like - but we can make a good guess by looking at Twitter and 4chan.
Incorrect. Twitter is gone and was censored. X, the replacement, is censored. 4chan is censored.
No? I said they’d be there to take advantage of it and just spam up the feed.
Incorrect. You suggested they would be the ones censoring everyone else, not the ones having a bunch of removed spam posts.
Again, you might want to get that looked at by a professional.
Other repulsive people would be there too, of course.
Duh. This must go hard af when you have 62 IQ
“Any disagreement or question I don’t like is gaslighting”
Incorrect. Look up what gaslighting is.
You made the claims. You back it up.
Why?
Not moving on this.
Didn't ask.
So every single community that has rules beyond “don’t spam” are run by glowies? Without exception?
You said "so" here like what you're asking if this is a rephrasing of what I said.
No, and it's a completely bad faith attempt to rephrase me.
Every single community that has rules beyond "don't spam" is run by people who agree with glowies on having more rules than "don't spam," and what I said was that lemmy.world, a particular instance (not every instance), is run by people who are glowies.
This shouldn't need to be clarified, but you keep making me clarify already-clear shit because you're discussing this in bad faith.
They aren’t told to.
Didn't ask, why waste time with this?
They aren’t pressured into.
Into what? Probably incorrect, but finish your point
They have specific ideals for their instance that they wish to happen via the rules of their instance.
Didn't ask, why waste time with this?
Okay. So? I’m not interested in the semantics. The Lemmy software is accessible for anyone to spin up and use as they like.
Didn't ask, why waste time with this?
No, I was pointing out that the “discussion” outside of what the “corporate authorities allow” is according to you, actually just CSAM.
No, you're just upset I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
I never said CSAM is the only content censored by the authorities.
I don’t think anyone here wants to “allow” in that.
Didn't ask what you think everyone else thinks.
I do: They weren’t. They just didn’t want to host CSAM.
Incorrect.
No, I think that they came to that decision on their own.
Didn't ask, and the "no" is misplaced since this doesn't refute what I said, which is still true.
So no-one forced them then. So no pressure.
Incorrect. Learn what "pressure" means.
So you don’t actually know, yet you claim it must have happened.
Incorrect. I'm not the one refusing to look things up.
Never been there. I’m guessing it’s a Hamas related site. I doubt it has anything necessarily to do with the US authorities or anything to do with Reddit or Lemmy concerns.
That sounds batshit insane. Let me guess, you think the US doesn't control "Israel?" Fucking delusional.
So what now? What’s your next move?
Perhaps replying to someone else. Perhaps replying to you again.
You know there’s no interest in what you want.
Yet another weak gaslighting attempt.
You know there is interest in what I want.
You have finally named one example hamas.ps. You’ve provided no examples of any Lemmy community being shut down.
Didn't ask.
Obviously not what I meant, so why did you pick this time-wasting topic for your reply?
You sure can. You avoid them.
Avoiding people alone does not make them unable to hear you or reply to you in public places. If you meant "avoiding people and not having any public opinions" then maybe, but before TV, that would have kinda fucked up any attempt at political involvement.
You don’t go to the places they go.
Again, does nothing for the "public places" issue unless you also make sure none of your opinions are public, which is a moot point in the context of trying to make ambulances stop costing money.
The internet piles everyone together and humans can’t handle that scale.
Some humans can. I'm one of them, and I'm trying to help others learn to do the same, before Earth goes extinct. It's quite urgent.
People heard other political opinion from more reasonable people who mixed with different groups that happened to intersect at a place.
People were more reasonable, but they didn't magically make their birthplaces match locations full of agreeable people, or have the freedom to live wherever they wanted, or even always have opinions shared by any large group of people anywhere.
It's this middle person that enables the flow.
This middle person has not solved the problem of people using screens to echo chamber themselves, ever since TVs became widespread.
This middle person was more of a factor back when people spent more time in public places, especially in eras where people felt safer discussing politics, like in the US when it was an anti-Nazi country.
Didn't ask, so why did you waste my time with this reply?
Were they?
You know the answer.
How do you know that?
Same way as you, difference is I'm not trying to lie or gaslight anyone.
I think it’s more likely that the original lemmy.world admins want to censor that to begin with.
More likely than what? I never said they don't.
And when has this happened?
I don't know, have you tried looking it up?
Is there any good reason to assume it is going to happen?
Yeah. hamas.ps has been down for almost 2 years, which is ongoing, and it's safe to assume it's due to the authorities.
Okay, so you’ll have to get used to the fact that people, mostly, don’t want zero censorship in their communities.
Can't "get used to" something one is already used to.
Example of "get used to" being used correctly in a sentence:
Perhaps in the future, you'll have to get used to more people wanting to be in uncensored communities.
Past events and present events that you can’t even name.
Incorrect. I have specified many times. Scroll up.
A simple "no" would have sufficed, but you chose to waste more of my time than that.
So, until today, you thought the corporate authorities allowed CSAM on reddit?
Or are you just upset that I say what I mean, and mean what I say?
It is. Do you have anything else or just completely unexplained denialism?
I don’t think we should “redefine slurs.” Slurs are slurs.
I don't agree with your definition, and my opinion was prevalent and dictionary-recognized before yours. Would you also like to redefine "redefine" or are you quite simply what's called lying?
I don’t want to redefine right-wing to mean people who use slurs. I stated that slur-usage is most common among the far-right.
Right - that's trying to redefine "right-wing" as people who use what you now define as "slurs," and redefining "far" to mean "near" or "middle," since you now use "slurs" as a label for normal, common words. Why make me repeat this?
You cannot just make people stop being able to hear you or reply to you in a public place.
The average person could not just avoid every political opinion they disagreed with before the TV was widespread.
Stop ignoring stuff willingly.
What uncensored feeds are you looking at currently to know this?
I don't get what you're trying to ask. Again, I have not gotten any uncensored feeds just by wanting them so far. Freedom isn't free.
What? I am saying that in a completely uncensored feed, whatever the site is, you’ll end up with nazis populating it. People don’t want to interact and associate with nazis. I said nothing about that particular group censoring anything.
It's extremely weird that your explanation of what no censorship would supposedly be like, is exactly how Nazis censoring everyone else would actually be.
Nazis typically explain what no censorship would supposedly be like, by describing how it would actually be if they could censor everyone else - instead of actually explaining what no censorship would be like.
You could just use Twitter generally and interact in an almost no-moderating environment. Or go to 4chan. Or many other sites that I’m sure exist.
Why did you put this after a quote section of yet another question you ignored, while basically repeating the point I was addressing with that question? Just another attempt at gaslighting, right?
So no evidence. Got it. You are just making things up.
Incorrect. Did you try looking it up?
Everything I do apparently is gaslighting, according to you.
That's not what I said, but it sounds like it might be a confession, falsely attributed to me.
So why do you think lemmy.world has rules beyond just blocking spam?
Because it's run by glowies, duh.
Why did you waste my time with such a dumb question right after quoting more of my questions you refuse to answer?
Yeah, I’m talking about specific instances. The lemmy.world owners and admins. The sh.itjust.work owners and admins. They make their own decisions for their own instance.
Not sure what you mean but sounds irrelevant
They don’t control other instances that are made that yes, are self-hostable.
Internet stuff isn't literally self-hostable. "Self hosting" is basically just a euphemism for using your own server, not literal.
Good for them. What’s your point?
The point was what I said it was: that therefore, what you suggested considering would be a waste of time to consider.
Why did you need that repeated? Seems like more trolling and gaslighting
No, some lemmy instances have different rules.
I didn't say they all have identical rules, so the "no" doesn't make sense here, and neither does bringing this up again overall.
Some allow pornographic content. Some do not. There’s a specific instance that is explicitly about porn: lemmynsfw.com. Sh.itjust.works could change the rules tomorrow and nothing will happen to them.
Didn't ask. Why are you telling me all this?
What “rules” are you referring to that all Lemmy instances have?
You were literally just listing some of them, now you're pretending you've never heard of a Lemmy instance having rules?
How is it you imagine Reddit users can somehow not grant it?
By coding a decentralized P2P reddit and moving there, I guess.
Or just a tor version of Lemmy could be good.
But ignoring that, any user-made community has specific topics and themes in mind for what it wants to focus on. This necessarily requires focusing on those things to the explicit censorship of other topics.
Right, and you can't pick those other topics for your community, because federation is broken.
A boat takes far, far longer - so no it’s not.
Wanting everyone to die makes you a piece of shit, even if you also enjoy convenience. In fact, enjoying convenience does nothing to make me value you. Pretty much everyone enjoys convenience. You have not sold me on the virtue of making the planet extinct with pollution by telling me I could cross the ocean faster in the process. You have also not sold me on forgiving the crime. You have also not sold me any plane tickets. Was there a point here?
How do you know they were going on holiday?
I don't know or care.
But even if it was a holiday, going on a boat from UK to Brazil, for instance can take up to a month.
So don't take a holiday from the UK to Brazil if you're in a hurry. Not rocket science. The Yorkshire Dales are nice.
Impact in reducing its spread online.
You mean some people who want it can't find it online, and you think that's a good thing?
Let me guess, a genie (or a regular human) told you if you can stop someone from finding something online, you make them less likely to commit abuse themselves?
I’m in favour of censoring CSAM, and arresting child porn creators and proliferators. You are apparently only in favour of the latter.
I'm in favor of arresting the most severe sexual abusers, regardless of what age they target. And perhaps sexual abuse material creators/proliferators are even worse.
CSAM is sexual abuse material, with the word "child" added, mainly to lend more weight to attempts to ban what was previously called "child porn" which is basically any sexual imagery that's banned for having underage subjects - not only the abusive stuff, so not only the stuff I have a problem with.
I'm not saying we need to pressure France to arrest a bunch of French film directors for scenes with naked girls as soon as Trump or his replacement finds it politically convenient to label such things as so-called "illegal content."
Since when does taking it down mean you pretend it doesn’t exist?
Perhaps I shouldn't oversimplify. You do know they exist. My bad.
You probably believe things like "3-letter agencies aren't overrun with rapists" and/or "they're less likely to abuse if they can't find the material" and I was calling those kinds of views "pretending they don't exist."
This is semantics to the point of nonsense. It is against the law to host or share child porn almost everywhere.
Maybe I shouldn't have wasted time on the semantic point, but it's important to me.
Why not also take down CSAM at the same time?
Makes it harder to reach a future where everyone's positions are clarified. That means abusers are protected, and victims are neglected.
Better question: why would you ever do it, unless you were somehow convinced it made people less likely to commit abuse or something?
How does it contradict it? Usually when a CSAM site is taken down, it is alongside an investigation into the owners of said website at the same time. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
They clearly are. Taking it down doesn't help anyone investigate it, only hinders investigation. It makes no sense to suggest the opposite, especially if you're aware 3-letter agencies are probably overrun with rapists.
So if I was an admin on an instance, and someone posted CSAM - I should only remove it in the context of removing spam and not because it’s CSAM?
That would be my way.
I’m not a victim of CSAM but I still don’t want to see child porn.
Seems hard to be the admin removing it without seeing it, bud. So should you be the one removing it, or should that be someone who openly wants to see it?
How do you know that this isn’t a decision of the Fediverse, and not from downward pressure?
I don't get what you're trying to ask, but whatever it is, I get the feeling you ignored me saying "perhaps unintentionally."
Does not compute.
Didn't ask.
If you want an uncensored feed, then that’s what you’ll get.
Not so far.
You’ll get nazis in your feed all the time.
It's extremely weird that in this part you seem to have "everyone being uncensored" confused with "the Nazis censoring everyone else"
Get that looked at bro
That’s a duty you can do for yourself even on mainstream sites like Twitter.
Yeah, but I have more than 2 minutes in a day, so what do I do when Elon Musk has gotten as much of my attention as he deserves?
I’m asking for a time where a lemmy instance was pressued by a regulatory body to censor content.
OK. I'm not helping find one you can still look at. I'm probably not helping find one at all. Try Google or something.
Why do you assume that the only reason an instance would have rules against things other than spamming does so because of fear of state retalitation?
I don't. Why do you pretend I assume that, while ignoring my questions? Just a weak attempt at gaslighting, right?
Have you considered that the owners and admins of the instances chose the rules because they want them and don’t believe in a free-for-all uncensored instance?
No, that would be a waste of time to consider since Lemmy advertises itself as "self-hostable" and there are people into so-called "self hosting" who are also into free speech.
This started with me blocking lemmy.world because I heard they defederate "tankie" instances
Agreement:
I'm glad you support an instance that does no blocking, and instead gives you all the tools
Disagreement:
Custom feeds and labels solve basically the same problems as block lists without being anywhere near as harmful
"Symmetric blocking" as you call it, cannot coexist with public discussion, and is not natural or appropriate for a political "town square"
Real laws are rarely localized, so saying "local laws" makes it sound like you think "laws of man" are real
Are you implying I'll run out of motivation to embarrass you, before you run out of motivation to embarrass yourself?
Seems unlikely.
Why? You've repeatedly suggested I should do this, but repeatedly ignored me asking why.
What do you see when you Google it? That's another question you keep ignoring.
Why do you ask such a dumb question right after quoting the part where I asked for proof of your search result, which you didn't include?
Didn't ask. Why waste time with this part?