Skavau @ Skavau @piefed.social

Posts

919

Comments

293

Joined

5 mo. ago

Moderating

---

I really, really doubt that a website owner based in USA would be extradited to the UK for not complying with UK local law with how they run their website. That's absurd.

They believe that Ofcom could pressure their hosts to cut their services off if they don't comply with the act, or believe they could be fined.

I doubt that the USA would recognise and take down websites for not following Ofcoms requirements. And Ofcom would 100% be too cowardly to even threaten that. They'd just geoblock.

To be clear, the specifics in the act go beyond not specifically hosting pornographic content.

Currently Twitter is doing the bare minimum by simply allowing UK users to bypass the age-checks by setting their location to another country.

You think Netanyahu, who managed to string Trump along to attack Iran, wouldn't have managed the same with a much more Hawkish Clinton?

More hawkish? Debateable in the context of Israel. In any case, this is an argument for them being the same, not different. And "attacking Iran" is not the same as occupying it as you initially claimed.

Also we saw that Trump, after the bombing immediately wanted the whole thing to be done, claimed huge success and got a ceasefire between Israel and Iran going.

And how do you know Clinton wouldn't do this as well? What has Clinton said about Iran post-2016?

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted Iranians to know what she was prepared to do as president in hopes of deterring an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

Nice omission of context there, pal. Clinton has always had liberal hawk credentials, but I don't see a realistic circumstance where she would have ever launched a ground invasion of Iran.

In addition, you're going back to the 2008 primary there.

When exactly did Clinton commit to an invasion of Iran?

Tbf so are lots of Brits in the passive sense.

Mr. Robot and Severance both are highly acclaimed by critics and audiences. They are both firmly prestige TV regardless of who funded them.

I can imagine Ofcoms head exploding at the concept of the Fediverse.

"What's a Lemmy?"

Those are UK sites that shut down though?

I mean are there are any new announcements

Because it illustrates the underlying issue: who owns the community, who gets to decide what happens to it, who gets to decide whether each individual user gets to use it, or to be moved elsewhere to a different instance entirely that they may know nothing about?

I mean again, this is just down to a fundamental difference between how you and I view communities. I view them as modular concepts essentially temporarily on a server space, being able to move if they do please. And the federative nature of the Fediverse means that badly run communities can be abandoned for another one with the same name.

An example here that's relevant: I unilaterally just moved obscuremusic from lemm.ee to piefed after lemm.ee shut down. It's a small community, but was it wrong for me to do that?

I would be in favour of automated prompts going out to all users informing them of community moves.

Currently it belongs to the mods, as too happened on Reddit, and to the admins. Lemmy is extremely authoritarian in nature btw, even more so than Reddit, e.g. Reddit does all of: (1) notifying users of a moderation event (e.g. post/comment removal) while Lemmy users in contrast may never find out that anything ever happened to their content

Reddit mods can absolutely silently remove posts without telling the poster. I don't know why you think they can't.

(2) providing a means of appeal or at least communication with the people responsible for that removal, chiefly the modmail but also similar means to contact admins

I don't think this is specifically omitted, just modmail infrastructure doesn't exist properly. You can still do it the old fashioned way by DMing mods.

To be clear, it's not my only reason - but it's the largest one.

Do we have site of any Lemmy instances that defederate from us? It'll be interesting to see if many do.

They wouldn't need to do that. If they're not in the UK, they wouldn't need to do anything. They're too small and outside Ofcom's power.

Lemmy.zip already geoblocked the UK because even though its hosted from Finland, a UK guy runs it. So he is in theory liable.

Oh yeah I appreciate that, but under an official migration system - they would have to get blahaj's approval. Which they wouldn't give if the community erupted.

But again, this happened without a migration system anyway - so what difference does it make?

You know I'm one of the rarer people pushed here because essentially all the communities are taken on Reddit. Every name for every possible community is captured. The Lemmyverse offers way more opportunity for community building.

This is very much a "the world and wrong, and I am right" sort of attitude. You may have rather idiosyncratic tastes.

It just seems like you are placing a LOT of trust in community mods to make decisions on behalf of the community for its own well-being rather than to feed their egotistical desires.

To be fair, community mods have any number of ways to behave badly as stewards even without such a system. I also don't see what is immediately potentially corrupt about moving instance in a way that would inherently annoy the audience.

However, I am recalling the semi-recent controversy of the 196 mods attempting to forcibly move their community from blahaj to Lemmy.world and people got insanely angry and started a whole new 196 (again, which is how 196 had moved to blahaj in the first place).

Well, I mean there we are. I suppose in that event someone else would co-opt them entirely.

But supposing community migration did exist then, the blahaj administrators would have to give consent - and if the community clearly rejected it, I doubt they would give it.

A lot of people came here from Reddit to get away from such practices, not subject themselves to an army of little fiefdoms within which each mod is in control of their own community.

To be fair, the current piefed migration system relies on the consent of the new instance. You can't just do it unilaterally. And I assume a piefed to piefed community transfer would require the consent of the old instance too, so you can't just do it uniltaterally. And in a general sense we are already all at the mercy of corrupt instance owners as it is.

If Reddit was an empire, then your model sounds like a peaceful, hopefully loving (sometimes, but... perhaps not always?) kingdom, whereas I am talking about a democracy where the individual people who submit their content get to control their individual futures, even if their past submissions are carved in stone and their own control over it mostly released.

I mean as I said, the ideal migration system would leave public records of movement - and people would post knowing full well that all communities are modular and could be moved.

So applying that same thinking process here, does anyone - not just Rimu but anyone - have the right to simply steal community content wholesale?

In my opinion this is a mindset issue. You are thinking of communities as integral parts of instances rather than modular concepts. In my mind, a community migration would be mutual and transparent. There could even be a "Community History" button somewhere in the sidebar that details its timeline if it has moved instances at any point. Instances could in theory 'reject' recognition of migration from all other instances or specific instances, but in a collaborative cross-instance setup - ideally I'd imagine most instances would be on-board as it benefits everyone. The purpose of being able to just shift instances like that, to such an extent, is to prevent them from having to completely restart if an instance (like lemm.ee) goes down, or if they find that they're having disagreements with the instance administrators.

Lemm.ee shocked everyone, but the passage of time will lead to more instances slowly dropping and forcing their communities to find new homes. That isn't a slight on the fediverse system, it's just what will happen naturally as some instance owners just lose interest over time.

Why wouldn't the commentors have the right to do or not do what they wish with their own comments?

I mean I don't know why I would be bothered if my own comment history on "television" (for instance) suddenly publicly changes from television@piefed.social to television@piefed.world. It would still be the same community, and describe itself as such. You could even add little disclaimers in automatically migrated comments for transparency.

And even more relevant, what if the recipient instance has different rules than the original? Like defederations? Rules about niceness or illegality of stuff (see e.g. Lemmy.world's whole deal with piracy community).

Presumably a piracy community wouldn't migrate their community into an anti-piracy instance. The host community and instance would have to consent to migration.

Might it not be better to make a hard break from the old, allowing a fresh start on the new? i.e. community migration is just a convenience feature, it was never meant to do all the things that you said.

Depends on how built-up your community is. It sucks to have to start all over again.