Nostr pubkey: npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2
When was lemmy.world or lemmy.zip or piefed.social pressured by ICANN? Pressured to do what?
When they were created, they were pressured to censor non-spammers, such as people who share CSAM or other forms of "child porn."
How is that a strawman? You specifically said that Fediverse only exists because MAGA allows it, implying that they could just press a few buttons if they wanted to completely wipe it all out. This seems nonsensical.
It's not. That's how DNS and IP addresses work, they can be blocked by pressing a few buttons. I also implied MAGA could make it permanent by using their guns on non-MAGA staff at places like ICANN offices, which is also true, not nonsensical.
I don’t see what’s wrong with “justifying” basic rules on a community or instance against child porn, incitement of violence, threats, general personal abuse etc. I don’t think that’s a censorship fetish anymore than a place of work having basic decorum standards has a “censorship fetish” or is in a “censorship cultism” trance.
I addressed this in my original post. This place (Lemmy/Earth) is overrun with people who are into stuff like this. You know that, and you're willingly ignore it, since you quoted it with the words "censorship fetish."
Making me repeat myself isn't gonna magically make Lemmy do much better than reddit.
It’s a hypothetical risk that’s never happened.
Making me repeat myself also won't move past and present events out of the past and present.
How am I supposed to disprove that I was not being sarcastic?
Not my problem, why the fuck are you asking me?
“Am I out of touch? No, it’s everyone else who is wrong”
Correct, but you seem to be trying to implicitly suggest argumentum ad populum isn't a fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Why do you believe it's not a fallacy? And why not save me the time of asking by just explaining the opinions you interject with?
Not a Nazi, not from 4chan.
Weak gaslighting attempt, glowie.
Nope. The person I was replying to mentioned a "very specific desire" of mine. They were trying to pretend politics is no big deal, like people who think climate change is a future problem that will "just get fixed." I was pretty clear on the whole train of thought, seems dishonest to call it non-sequitur.
You think we should redefine "slur" to include common words, and then redefine "right wing" to mean "people who use what we now call slurs," and then redefine "far" to mean "near" or "middle"
These things do not help achieve communism - we need honesty in order to achieve communism, not lies
How?
Yet again, federation broken. Re-read original post.
Yes, because it means that bribery to censor or control content on an instance is not an effective way to manipulate the Fediverse.
Incorrect.
It negates your point.
Nope.
Yes, I’m happy to see bans happen to “certain people”. You are a desolate minority on here. Almost no-one agrees with you, and does not desire an instance or federated instances without moderation.
Didn't ask, don't care. Why did you type this?
You made the claim. You back it up.
What claim? (Too lazy to scroll up and check)
Why should I back it up?
Have you got any precedent of ICANN doing this at all?
Nope. Is there a reason I should?
So? You still get what you want.
This seems like it's baiting me to give a reply that could get me banned here. Try saying it on nostr
It’s not broken. It works as intended.
Incorrect, unless it's intended to keep ambulance rides expensive for poor people.
You’re making claims that are not true.
Incorrect.
You said that "Tor doesn’t work, so you cannot just start your own instance. It has to be approved by the authorities."
Correct, with the caveat that anyone discussing this in good faith would find it very obvious I meant a proverbial "you," not a glowie like you personally.
So you openly want CSAM visible on the internet. I’ll let stand on its own.
Why did you put this after a random quote from what you were replying to? Is it supposed to flow together somehow?
People use TOR to obfuscate and cover their tracks so they can get away with doing illegal things. That’s its primarily appeal for many people.
Incorrect, and weirdly phrased.
It also seems to be the ONLY reason why you want the fediverse to incorporate it.
Incorrect again. I want Lemmy to support "federation" over Tor so I can see what a zero-censorship cluster of instances is like, as I said in my post. I don't do shit like call half-banned acts "illegal"
Yes, Lemmy apparently doesn’t work over TOR. But normal federation works.
I don't get what you mean by "normal federation." Lemmy has a thing called "federation" that doesn't work.
You just don’t like how it works.
Incorrect, but why depends what you meant:
If you meant Lemmy's federation, the issue is that it doesn't work.
If you meant some other federation system, I don't even know what you're talking about, and haven't given a position on it.
Lemmy is open-source software that anyone can use and host their own instance (not community)
Why do you disagree with the dictionary's definitions of the word "community" and Lemmy's use of it in the UI?
and set out the rules within that instance as they please.
Incorrect. Lemmy doesn't support Tor federation, so this doesn't work. How many times do I have to repeat myself in this thread?
But that doesn’t mean anyone is going to want to play with you if you have posting standards almost everywhere else doesn’t agree with.
Whether that means that, wasn't in contention - the only reason you'd pretend it was, is because you're into gaslighting.
And I never said anything about "playing" - the only reason you'd use the term "play with you" is because you're into gaslighting.
And you know I'm not the only person who's against censorship - so the only reason you'd waste time trying to suggest I'm on my own, is because you're into gaslighting.
And you embarrass yourself severely with your standard of replies around someone like me, so the only reason for phrasing like "posting standards" is, again, because you're into gaslighting.
I don't care.
Didn't ask.
My question stands: Are you against laws that compel site owners and administrators to remove CSAM?
Yes, since it's similar to the question you decided not to earn an answer to, the question stands.
Let me guess, you just learned the phrase “my question stands” and you can't get enough of it?
Because that ultimately seems to be where your argument is at this point. “Embrace TOR so you are no longer legally tracable for hosting CSAM or terrorism”.
I don't use the word "legally" and, while I understand that "tracable" is a typo for "traceable," I don't understand what "legally tracable" even means. I can't really tell if this is anything like "where my argument is at this point."
Reddit is subject to intense commercial interests and pressures which has led to its decline as a platform.
Correct.
The Fediverse simply is not. Your diagnosis of Reddits flaws is broken to begin with, ergo your conclusions don’t work.
Incorrect.
Then if an instance is compromised by bribery, people can all defederate the instance and move their communities from it. That’s the point of federation.
Didn't ask. Is this supposed to be relevant somehow? If so, how?
Have you considered both the users and the admins of the instances don’t support a free-for-all system where people can hurl abuse, insults, slurs, and make threats?
Copying and pasting yet again: "this weird censorship fetish is extremely popular and most of you are happy to see bans happen to certain people, not just bots, so a small Lemmy that censors certain people feels fundamentally different from a big reddit that censors more people."
A fantasy that exists only in your head, that has never happened.
Source?
Why does it matter if they block themselves vs. you blocking them?
Me blocking them is a waste of time when they've already blocked themselves, and why did you yet another dumbass question you shouldn't need me to answer after a quote where I asked you yet another question you ignored? Just a weak attempt at gaslighting, right?
That doesn’t mean its broken, it just means it doesn’t work like you want it to.
No, I'm talking about the broken federation system, not my whole preference for P2P systems over "federation"
The “authorities” do not manually approve every single emerging lemmy instance.
Why do you bring up yet another random thing? Again, is this supposed to be related somehow?
What are you on about?
Are you asking what I've typed on a screen where you can already re-read it?
I’ll do whatever I like, without your permission.
Didn't ask. Why do you bring this up? Did you misread a word as "permission?" I didn't say any words that use any letters like "permission." Did you get confused in some other way?
I reject your claims about my behaviour.
Don't care.
My question stands
Yes, since you decided not to earn an answer, your question stands. Let me guess, you just learned the phrase "my question stands" and you were in a rush to use it?
The correct punctuation mark also would have been a period, not a colon, to end a sentence.
Are you against laws that compel site owners and administrators to remove CSAM?
Your phrasing, and the misused colon, could confuse a reader who joins in here, into thinking this was the old question - not a new one.
Either way, it's pretty dumb to add a second question when you just commented on how you decided not to earn an answer to the other one.
So there’s no reason to believe it will go down the same trajectory.
I explained how it would and it had nothing to do with that stuff, so that doesn't make sense.
What commercial pressures is Lemmy currently subject to?
Moderation is done by humans, so they can always be bribed.
But the thread you're commenting on was actually originally about how Lemmy's federation is broken, and the brokenness is perpetuated by people who are into censorship (which it can be argued is a "commercial pressure") and then the result, where instances/clusters can all be shut down by ICANN any time, definitely leaves the user base continuing to be subjected to commercial pressure
…I’m lost on why this is pointless. Don’t you achieve the same result?
What? How is this confusing you?
You can? You run your own instance and block who you like and federate with who you like. If it’s just you, you’d likely not be defederated by the instances who you federate with.
For the millionth time, federation is broken according to the documentation. Tor doesn't work, so you cannot just start your own instance. It has to be approved by the authorities. How many times do I have to repeat myself in this thread?
That's just TOR, not federation.
On desktop, use "ctrl+f"
On mobile, find the "search in page" feature for your browser
Then type "federation"
Or, to find it more easily: try reading the second paragraph of the link
How would they be “baiting” them exactly? I don’t recall where the Lemmy devs explicitly advertised it like that.
Odd. People keep telling me Lemmy advertises itself as a place where everyone can start their own communities with "self-hosted" instances that combine using "federation"
You have provided no reason I should provide an example, despite repeatedly suggesting I should, and repeatedly being asked why.
Because you made the claims. You back it up. Not moving on this.
I don't see any valid reasoning here. Wondering if you'll try again or not - hopefully you're done wasting time repeating this nonsense.
I’ll ask another thing this time: what do you find when you just look it up? Does that not work?
There is no example. It doesn’t exist. It hasn’t happened.
Screenshot where you get that search result?
"These rules" as in the rules all Lemmy instances have, which matches what I said.
Not "these rules" as in one specific instance's rules, which would obviously not match what I said.
Why are you making me explain this? Seems like bad faith discussion from you
It is self-contradictory.
Reddit has the authority to hijack a subreddit and change the mods and the rules, or just ban it. Reddit staff take that authority, and reddit users grant it.
If you want Lemmy to improve on that, which I also want, that area of improvement is what we call a form of "free speech."
You cannot accurately say Lemmy should offer this improvement over reddit, but it is not related to free speech. That is just incorrect.
I don't know how to respond to this comment. Upvoting and leaving a confused reply.
Scroll up and please stop wasting my time.
This is a laughable position given sometimes people need to travel pretty far.
The context was other countries, not space.
If you need to go to space, don't call it a country, and don't try a plane. A spaceship is the minimum.
If you need to go to another country, and the ocean is between you and it, a boat is usually best.
Planes are a very bad choice for pretty much anything today. Jet engines are appropriate when you need to transport a donated organ for transplant as fast as possible, not when you need to take selfies in Paris or say goodbye to your dying mom you forgot to live within appropriate range of (like Killer Mike, who was too busy to make it even at the speed of plane, but thank God human greed has given us such convenient ways to pollute the air).
Probably had some impact.
Uhh. What? Some?
Like, more than imprisonments and killings? Or just... some?
Even if it isn’t, that means it should never be taken down?
No, it means you shouldn't pretend "effectiveness against abusers" is a point for your side instead of mine. Pretending victims and perpetrators don't exist is good for the perpetrators and bad for the victims, but that's not the entire reasoning for why free speech is good.
No, it’s literally illegal to share child porn in many countries.
No, it's literally illegal for two positive magnets to attract each other in any known location ("laws of physics"). It's literally illegal for a person to get away with detonating nuclear bombs without permission in many countries (a rare exception to "laws of man" being fake). It's figuratively illegal for two men to be attracted to each other in Saudi Arabia (banned but people still do it as they should), or for a cop to help another cop get away with raping a kid in the US and sharing video of it in the group chat (banned but people still do it even though they shouldn't).
Yeah, lets assume we’re talking about actual child porn here - not stuff on the edge, or stuff that could be considered as child porn. Which goes beyond girls in bikinis.
I don't get what you mean. Which is it, are the girls in bikinis (posting themselves) actual "child porn" to you, or no?
So what if it actual CSAM then? Should it be taken down then?
No, that is not what I said.
I said imprison or kill the people posting it, until there are none.
I mean, if you're talking about "taken down after spamming replies on a post I made," then sure. But if you mean "taken down from the whole internet," then no, that actually starts to contradict what I said, which was to imprison or kill the people posting it.
Right, if I am an admin on an instance - I’m obviously not able to actually kill the poster who posted it. So what do I do? Do I take down down the CSAM?
If you're me, it depends where it is. I wouldn't be an admin on an instance that filters non-spam universally. If it's spamming the replies to an unrelated post, sure, get rid of it, like any other spam. (I also misspoke originally when I framed it as "humans vs bots" in my main post - I've got to try to remember to use the word "spam" not "bots" because we have human spammers and now chat bots that can actually answer questions usefully sometimes)
If you're a traumatized CSAM victim, idk, maybe you want to stay in places with less freedom and be an admin of a place that removes all that stuff. That seems healthy for some people, and I don't think there's anything wrong with them for wanting that.
Copying and pasting:
Before we proceed, can you confirm you understand that’s according to you, not me? I do not remember if it’s true, it is not “according to me.” You said it twice but still haven’t admitted you’re wrong. If you are too addicted to bad-faith discussion to admit this, I am done reading what you type.