And my comment. In a private window I can see that he replied to my comment as well, despite the fact that I blocked him, so blocks are still not working properly apparently.
I'm not expecting perfection, but there hasn't even been visible commitment to a strong moderation policy. ernst has as far as I can tell remained mostly silent on the matter, occasionally deflecting to "tools aren't ready yet", but also not really committing to what he wants to be done with the tools.
10A is a particularly prolific problematic user, and as a single user (unlike the flood of porn spam) it's a simple matter to ban him. It should not have been a hard decision to make by now.
Personally, a bit over a month ago, I defined banning 10A (as well as one other individual) as the canary that would let me consider recommending other people come here. I was willing to give it some time, but it hasn't happened yet. Whether this is an explicit policy of weak moderation, or simply an accidental one thanks to putting it at too low a priority, I don't know. But I don't particularly want to be on a site that I don't feel comfortable recommending other people use. So I'm taking my own (lack of) recommendation for now and going to take a long break from this site.
Ugh, and 10A somehow also hasn't been banned yet (and a quick check to his profile shows that he isn't just still making bad-faith arguments about "free speech" but is also still spreading xenophobia, fake news about the last election, and so on).
I'm out. Anyone know of a kbin (not lemmy) instance with reasonably good moderation?
Republicans have traditionally been the party of "regulation doesn't work, elect me and I can prove it to you".
Maybe Musk is just taking the logical counter-part to this "regulation doesn't work, put me in charge of a heavily regulated company and I can prove it to you".
On what basis would it?
Surely the government is allowed to teach what courses are run in government run schools by government employees in general. I mean, someone has to, and who else would it be?
Or if you're referring to the religion aspect of the first amendment... this seems religiously neutral?
The constitution doesn't ban bad governance, just some particularly easy to enumerate forms of it.
The funny thing about religious fundamentalists is their beliefs frequently outright contradict the written word of their religion...
Trying to grant fetuses rights isn't "supporting pregnancies", the line to restricting what pregnant people can do, including abortions, is direct and obvious. The fact that the sponsors of the bills have previously passed bills attempting to restrict abortion is a fact.
Supporting pregnancies would be doing things like passing more healthcare funding, better parental leave, literally just giving money to people with kids. That's not what this bill was about.
Olive oil?
You wouldn't live long, but compared to the other options you're listing...
This is just completely untrue. Musk founded SpaceX from nothing, there was no prior entity he acquired or invested in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX
There are lots of legitimate reasons to dislike Musk, there's really no need to make up lies about him to justify having an extremely low opinion of him.
Did you know that Pepsi briefly owned 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer?
Edit: On less of a technicality, the East India Company had something like 250k troops back in 1824.
The word "potentially" is doing a lot of work there.
In many cases of piracy, the result of not pirating the work would not have been more income for the rights holder, it would have been the person just not acquiring a copy of the work at all.
Yeah, I don't know what Colorado's laws are on this in general, but even if it's technically legal it seems like a huge risk that someone is going to plausibly allege that given the specific facts denying them time off was race/religion/family status/... discrimination. It might be legal (don't know), but it's a stupid policy for a number of reasons.
We should really amend the law to be "and if they incorrectly deny a claim they have to pay 10 times more". Enough to make it cost more than it's worth if they do it intentionally, not enough to bankrupt them...
It looks like this article is using @ZLabe 's charts, he posts regularly about this on mastodon, if you're using the "follow" feature on here (or on a mastodon account) at all I definitely recommend following him.
It sounds like you were viewing the “new” tab?
I don't think so, but I couldn't swear to it.
thats not a lot of interaction
Probably we just have different thresholds for a lot. People seeing hate 3000 times on the platform seems like a lot to me.
Speaking for myself I've seen both 10A and ps making these comments. 10A has managed to amass at least -2732 downvotes, ps -653, that's not a trivial amount of interaction. I came across an antiwoke post on the front page (I think just right after it was posted, so bad luck). And I'm holding off advocating people move to kbin until I see a moderating policy that results in banning them.
With the very rare exception, absolutely.
I'm actually not from the US, I was just giving it as an example because it is the most famous one that unequivocally does include it.
What I'm really saying is "free speech" isn't really one thing. It means different things in different contexts. For instance the breadth of "free speech" you should allow in what you promise to repeat (that's what hosting something is) is much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not think less of someone for saying is in turn much smaller than the breadth of "free speech" that you should not wield the power of government to punish. And people legitimately disagree on where each of those boundaries lie.
I do think I missed the mark with the comment you replied to rereading it. I raised it because when someone says "It's not a free speech platform and no one ever said it was" they are using the american republican-troll's definition of free speech that means "anything but child porn", and I think your reply was misunderstanding their comment as a result. But I don't think I successfully conveyed my point.
It depends on your definition of free speech, the US constitution does consider it part of free speech.
The US constitution also considers free speech a right that protect a websites right not to repeat hate speech, not a users "right" to force a website to host their speech. In the constitutions view of the world free speech is protection against the government, not a tool to force other people to host your speech.