Uh, @lwadmin@lemmy.world .. what's up with the banning going on in this thread? I noticed on a.lemmy.org that someone was labeled "banned" and their comment was simply "Ight, I’m out"

The mod note was "Let us help you".

There are more similarly weak (spiteful?) bans that certainly don't seem to be at a standard for a ban. "Litterally 1984" was another one. Is that all it takes to be banned here?

Edit: Many (all?) the users I referenced as banned are now unbanned from the site, but now banned from this community.

Run for mayor (or local equivalent), win, and then push for/implement a bunch of rules that make the town inhospitable to tourists.

I assume the tourism brings in money to the local community, yeah? Cutting off that income will probably mean you won't be able to win the next subsequent election, so act fast.

There are worse, imo.

user @snake posted:

Did you ever consider ceding ownership of the instance to an entity with greater legal capabilities?

In the end, it will not make sense to try to keep this instance running if the owners are unable to provide adequate service to its users.

and was banned for:

reason: Go get your service somewhere else

Definitely not a great look.

What's wrong with writing poetry on an aircraft carrier? I can't speak to being on an aircraft carrier, but on a submarine you are not in war mode 24/7; there's time to do ordinary things. (usually).

Let me guess: Tommy here hasn't ever served in the military, right? All he knows about it is from movies?

My wife had a guy start at her company the same day she did, but he got fired that same day because for reasons no one understands he decided it would be wise to make his Teams (or whatever they used. Slack? I can't remember) profile picture a meme that said "Epstein didn't kill himself" or something to that effect.

It was a six figure software engineering job, too. I cannot imagine losing a job like that for such a silly, self-inflicted reason.

It's interesting you have this opinion; I figured this would be the biggest draw for corporations-- they're no longer beholden to some third party for their media presence-- it's all hosted and controlled by themselves;.

In email terms, it's the difference between tide@gmail.com and tide@tide.com.

Edit: I don't have any idea why I went with tide, so if you find yourself wondering why I did that, get in line. haha

The article quotes the TOS that gives only one reason why a person might lose their twiX handle, and it's not "Elon Musk wants it", so there's probably going to be a line of lawyers wanting to take this case.

They should have at least offered to give him the twitter handle. haha

I have to admit that I always thought she was agnostic, if not atheist, from that Pope stuff.

I idly wonder why a gay feminist would convert to Islam. Aren't those things incompatible? Is this my ignorance showing? Are there sects of Islam that are more open minded, like there are sects of Christianity?

You know, it's surprisingly vague even in the official documentation.

Let's test it out. Create a post on your instance, and then make a comment on that post, and I'll go report them both as "testing" and we'll see if you get notified.

Link them here so I can find them.

For reference, fifth graders are usually around 10 or 11 years old. Gifted or not they're almost certainly intelligent enough for this topic.

According to the article, there is a law that restricts teaching "divisive concepts". That batshit insane. "Divisive" doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

A caveat: This user analysis involved just 12 programmers being asked to assess if they prefer the responses of ChatGPT or those written by humans on Stack Overflow to 2,000 randomly sampled questions.

Nothing to see here.

Mastodon would be my personal preference, but Bluesky seems pretty noisy to me, which seems like what people want from microblogging sites (I'm more of a reddit/lemmy/kbin style person, myself.) The question is whether Bluesky pulls a Google+ and stays invite-only for so long that they miss their own hype train.

Can we step back for a second and just soak up the fact that it's 2023 and some presidential candidates still want to debate the benefits of owning humans?

I know MLK Jr said

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice

But man, that arc seems so long that a flat earther would deny there's a curve at all.

It's a law specific to Georgia. An article about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/08/15/fulton-county-jurors-names-public-threats-trump/

They're unbanning them from a sitewide ban and then immediately banning them from the lemmyworld community.

I literally cannot retrieve my child from school without a smartphone.

I'm positive there is a backup method; did you ask about one, or did you simply install the app?

An instance with no defederation policy is going to end up exactly like an instance with no moderation policy. It's going to become Voat or whatever the latest far-right website is these days.

You might be better served to seek out an instance with a transparent defederation policy, and admins that use it as a tool of last resort, instead of first resort. I was, perhaps mistakenly, under the impression that lemmy.world fit that bill, but maybe not so much.

Every once in a while I stumble upon a comment online that inadvertently reveals a lot about the person who made the comment.

There are reasons besides "being poor" for not have smart phone access at pickup time. I assure you the answer won't be "I guess this kid is spending the night here".

There is a backup method.

Edit: minor rewording for clarity.

I'm probably being overly cynical, but I have a pretty unflattering option of volunteer moderators and the type of people that seek out such seemingly thankless positions-- and their motivations for doing so. I know this might seem-- bizarre-- considering where I am posting this, but I think it nonetheless.

I like lemmy because there's a modlog to see these things. I do not believe that these users would be unbanned if it hadn't been noticed in the modlog. And it appears they're unbanned from the sitewide ban, but still banned in the community. Not sure what sense that makes.

If your instance gets big enough, you'll also have to deal with petty tyrants seeking out positions of petty power.

I haven't read the book in question, but I'm pretty confident the gist of the lesson is "it's okay for people to be different". What kind of broken person sees that message and says "no it's not"?

Well, maybe. I want to be up-front that I haven't read the actual lawsuit, but it seems from the article that the claim is that youtube and reddit both have an algorithm that helped radicalize him:

YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.

I'd say that case is worth pursuing. It's long been known that social media companies tune their algorithms to increase engagement, and that pissed off people are more likely to engage. This results in algorithms that output content that makes people angry, by design, and that's a choice these companies make, not "delivering search results".

It seems that the law in question is pretty focused on not making white people feel uncomfortable about racism.

I can't wait to see how AI describes conspiracy theory videos.

PSA standard ("real") tennis balls are bad for dogs, especially their teeth.. https://sierraveterinary.com/2022/03/29/the-dangers-of-tennis-balls/

Legal ramifications in what way? And do we know that there was a dialog about this with the community mods? The one I looked at has rules against directly linking to infringing content, so it seem-- at least from where I'm sitting-- that blocking would not be an appropriate first step, instead opening a dialog with the mods/admins to moderate any offending content.

And, in case it needs saying-- US copyright law is not global copyright law, and discussing copyright infringement is not illegal.

Though, more to the point, this kind of poor communication-- if not the actions themselves-- makes me wonder if I should move to a new instance. I don't want to, but I also don't want admins making decisions without communicating them to the userbase, whether I personally agree with the decision or not. It certainly doesn't give the impression of transparency.

I think most people are like this. It's hard to hold on to actual hatred. Most of us ain't got any time for that.

He's popular as a speaker because he "tells it like it is", which roughly translates to "he says the quiet racist parts out loud". I agree that this probably isn't a dog whistle. Or, it probably wasn't. It definitely is now, and I fully anticipate seeing someone wearing a shirt that colorfully uses the word "rigger".

You made two in a row! Impressive.

Trump hasn't exactly been a recluse even before he got into politics. People should have known better even in 2016.

Source on them not being legally binding? They have a mixed track record but I've never seen anyone flat out say they aren't legally binding. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not.

I am no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that something pre-dating the trademark is grandfathered in. Hence why Steam uses steampowered.com and not steam.com

There's really no imminent threat with Meta and ActivityPub, as a standard.

As for Threads and Mastodon, the "threat" is mild. If Meta wants your data, they can get it without spinning up an entire social network. If the concern is that it's going to lower the quality of the content, well, there's probably some truth to that, but that would happen with popularity, regardless of which service became popular, and it's a problem solved by the block function.

Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?

Because it's not worth the resources to worry about. The GOP is just doing it because they don't actually know how to govern; they need something they can point to that looks like they're actually doing something, and they know it spins up their low education voters.

I have a weak grasp of this, but a developer working on this responded to some criticism.

If the developers working to implement this are to be believed, they are intentionally setting it up so that websites would have an incentive to still allow untrusted (for lack of a better term) clients to access their sites. They do this by intentionally ignoring any trust check request 5% - 10% of the time, to behave as if the client is untrusted, even when it is. This means that if a website decides to only allow trusted clients, they will also be refusing trusted clients 5% - 10% of the time.

The relevant part of the response is quoted here:

WEI prevents ecosystem lock-in through hold-backs

We had proposed a hold-back to prevent lock-in at the platform level. Essentially, some percentage of the time, say 5% or 10%, the WEI attestation would intentionally be omitted, and would look the same as if the user opted-out of WEI or the device is not supported.

This is designed to prevent WEI from becoming “DRM for the web”. Any sites that attempted to restrict browser access based on WEI signals alone would have also restricted access to a significant enough proportion of attestable devices to disincentivize this behavior.

Additionally, and this could be clarified in the explainer more, WEI is an opportunity for developers to use hardware-backed attestation as alternatives to captchas and other privacy-invasive integrity checks.

A little while back the sheriff was asked about it and he said that unless he's told differently, he has no intention of treating Trump differently than anyone else being processed. So, mugshots.

This might be a little bit reductive, but I'm pretty sure you can tell that they're not competent lawyers because they are Trump's lawyers.

He's known to ignore his lawyers, lie to them, refuse to pay them, and throw them under the bus. I can't imagine a competent lawyer wanting that client. Maybe someone just looking to get their name plastered everywhere, aka some kind of grifter, but definitely not a competent lawyer.

Your cynicism isn't properly calibrated.

If you look at the viewpoint of a CEO, you'll see that they would be chomping at the bit to get rid of as many high paying technical or administrative roles as they can; it's not like that extra money is going to flow down the chain.

Now, if there were a threat of LLMs replacing a management position, that would be a different story.

Edit: Apparently my reading comprehension is what needs calibrating. Turns out I agree! My bad.

Federation does make things more complicated, but I think it's worth the growing pains.

This isn't strictly true, but even if it were, do you see anyone on the democratic side opening investigations into the Trump kids doing this?