It also might make sense that they don’t want to give details about exactly when people are successfully prosecuted, so they don’t give a new guideline of how to skirt around the rules.
I recall Valve has effectively acted the same way about anti-cheat; they tend not to go into detail about how some new release works, and will silently collect data on who they know to be cheaters for a long time.
Okay, totally off topic…what is it with this annoying trend of censoring a company/name with an asterisk when it’s a subject of ire? It just bugs me - and not in a way that focuses my anger to Microsoft.
What makes me angry here is, I am 90% sure the browsers could code against this.
If the user clicks a control on a webpage one time, the stack can declare “One user click! You have earned yourself One (1) navigation.” Then, the click activates some JavaScript that moves you to a new webpage. That new webpage has an auto-loader redirect that instead runs a 300ms timeout, and then takes you to some other page. The browser, meanwhile, has seen this, and establishes “We are still only operating off of that One (1) click. So, instead of adding a new page to the user history, we’ll replace that first navigation.”
I have yet to hear a satisfactory reason as to why that’s not possible.
I’m reminded of a joke from Burn Notice where Michael has kept a folder of critically important blackmail files in his mother’s oven for several seasons. He just casually points out she never actually cooks anything herself.
I could be wrong, but it might be unintentional. The algorithm seeing a process by which rage and reaction generates more views (and hence more ad revenue) and tries to see if it can get it to spread. Same thing that lead to all those stupid “open mouth yelling” thumbnails.
It’s still irresponsible, and I’m all for assuming evil out of Google, I just don’t think they’d gain much from getting you specifically indoctrinated by Ben Shapiro.
This post is about informing people about the nature of that instance; something many people don’t necessarily intend to interface with when they’re just exploring their favorite niche topic community which simply happens to be there. We don’t want people to unintentionally end up in that crowd without knowing about their principles or lack thereof.
I had a calm, respectful comment about China’s attempts to censor the Tiananmen Square photo removed for no reason, and without my knowledge. The idea that they’re conducting “normal moderation” is laughable.
The complaint is about lemmy.ml. This post is hosted on lemmy.world.
The issue that caused this topic to arise wasn’t of other people having opinions we didn’t like. It wasn’t even a case of arguing in bad faith, eg deflecting truth, or disguising real intentions by making arguments the owner doesn’t believe for some other purpose (those are also bad, but generally don’t get such a response).
The issue was specific moderator/instance-ownership censorship. People’s posts were being removed without warning when they were making respectful, good-faith arguments - that disagreed with the politics of lemmy.ml. Worse, they were attempting to be stealthy about this removal so that no one victimized by this censorship was aware of it.
For reference, I’m gonna be a Biden voter. If someone posted “Biden is a piece of trash old man” then I’d disagree with them, but they’d have every right to put that opinion up.
Might be time to pull a “body cam policy” and take the fun out of moderating.
No, just an implication towards the old lemmy.ml version of the community.
What I mean is, moving from a bad situation to an equally bad but improvable situation is still a good move. It might be better to have a small, unmoderated community than one governed by “pretend” moderators.
That said, if the above comment was pointing out a need to fulfill, as opposed to decrying the attempts at community replacement, then you could disregard my snide remark.
I mean, if your qualification for moderator includes “Not abusing powers to defend garbage extremist politics” then we currently have two communities that each have zero moderators.
I am one of the removed comments and just found out about it here. Does the Lemmy standard really not send direct messages to users when one of their messages was removed? If it was an actual Rule 1 violation (which of course, it wasn’t) I’d like to know.
Sora wants to know your location
Most people would be fine with this in the case of a home user duplicating one or two copies for his kids to watch and as backups. But we have seen whenever a rule permits something, someone will work out the MAXIMUM way in which they can abuse it for profit. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.
Ideally, we could have laws that are really finely built to be specific to that first scenario. But I honestly don’t know how you write those.
When I boil down the very moment of his decision, I agree in the idea of self defense. But it’s also why I’m generally opposed to filling an environment with high-lethality machines (be they guns, OR cars). It’s naive to put confidence behind the minds in control of those objects. Highways, too, have a high rate of deaths; but they at least serve some useful purpose.
IANAL, but: It circles back to the right to fair representation.
Say he’s convicted, but at a later court, claims “After my totally involuntary psychotic episode, now verified by multiple behavioral psychologists, my lawyer held my unintentional actions against me and did a demonstrably poor job in the remainder of the case. I deserve the right to a fair trial.”
That COULD be enough to get the case declared a mistrial and re-scheduled.
For the record, I oppose their choice of candidate. I think we’re better off encouraging voting as a whole, than encouraging people to fully give in to the two party system - even if I’m convinced by those arguments and plan to vote for Biden, I know other people have other perspectives and priorities.
On the other hand, we KNOW for sure that people who oppose voting as a whole are Russian bots or completely reprehensible bastards, and that is a very easy sentiment to stand by. We also know that there is one party that wins more often when more people decide to vote. I’ll let you guess which one.
I’d also say for future elections, putting more and more votes on third parties can warn the two parties that a pure message of “At least I’m not HITLER” is not viable enough.
As long as you’re still voting for someone, I’m good with that.
My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.
In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.
If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.
Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.