It gets banned/blocked, or sued for noncompliance for allowing Australian users without age verification. They’ll play whack a mole for decades, just like they have been for P2P file sharing.
Like a lot of post-911 legislation, it’s anti-privacy surveillance disguised as a way to ‘protect the children’. It’s absolute shit and we should absolutely be taking measures to anonymize our open source social media platforms further.
There’s no editorial process, anyone can post anything (within the TOS).
A lot of people use it for personal vlogs and such. It might be easier to ask how it’s meaningfully different from something like tiktok that makes it not social media.
Yea, no disagreement. I more am curious if the federated nature is what helps mitigate that risk, or if there is some other systemic distinction that has helped.
I also just don’t know what the others were like long-term - did they peeter out? Would I realize it if lemmy was in the same decline?
I’m not actually sure comments get sorted by vote tally by default here.
I’ve always just ignored downvotes - I know when my opinion is unpopular, I don’t see the votes as validating. I’d be fine if there were no visible votes at all
If i could do this without my wife noticing, I’d be golden.
Unfortunately, she took to lurking some reddit communities right as I was exiting
I wonder if anybody here has tried some of the other failed reddit alternatives like Voat for a long enough time to be able to speak on how lemmy has fared relative to them.
I tried a few during other reddit exoduses, and they all felt… bad. Lemmy is the first one I’ve managed to actually stay on comfortably without being tempted back to reddit.
The critique of the trolly problem isn’t that you don’t still make the choice, it’s that the outcome was predetermined before you even got there.
Leftists who are making a point of abstaining are doing so to point out that voters have no control over the trolly to begin with - that the choice is artificial because the outcomes were pre-selected by someone/something else to ensure a particular outcome, and that participating in that choice only ends up legitimizing that process.
You misunderstand, I only mean that it’s disconcerting that there may be some reason that cis-women do not find the hobby/group appealing
I know ghost has a container deployment and uses activity pub
I do wonder how many within the man/woman responses are trans, too.
Idk if that survey was mainly advertised on lemmy, but i know that at least one instance that did a survey had maybe 2% woman respondents, but more than two thirds of those were transfem.
Either way, a little disconcerting. I’m not sure what to make of that or what (if anything) to do about it
But only the data that is explicitly intended to be public. There’s no single entity installing invasive apps or logging your traffic through partner network sites.
Facebook had half the internet using your Facebook login as authentication at one point
I don’t think an apology is warranted when it’s apparent a claim is being made as a bad-faith deflection.
Even if you had made a compelling case for your use of the word (you still haven’t), it’s still in response to someone pointing to a genocide that’s already happening. You could’ve just said ‘Houthis are evil because they are using child soldiers’ and we wouldn’t have anything to talk about (except maybe a debate over whether that changes the ethics of a US-Saudi backed genocide against them), but instead you said “Houthis are using child soldiers”, then “Killing children is a form of genocide”, and then chose not to elaborate any further, even when pressed.
“It really seems like it to me” is about as satirical as dwight type-casting an italian-american as a mobster.
So your point about them using child soldiers is unrelated to your claim that they’re “killing children in large numbers”?
Seemed like you were conflating the two, maybe I got that wrong.
When you casually drop ‘genocide’ into a conversation without elaborating on who or what you’re talking about you’re likely to cause some confusion.
I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
Hey guys, I drive a SUV, does that mean I’m in the mob?
No, not that, by itself. But look at all the facts. He seeeeems like a mobster.
Errr- i see why you might want to say that but that’s not how it works
crawling other people’s content for the purpose of making money off it (in a way that does not benefit the content creator).
You’re describing capitalism there, bud
The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because ‘dual-use’ is too vague. Russia’s been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they’ve been saying they’re all legal military targets, even if they’re serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don’t have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.
Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they’ve thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s being said is ‘fair-play’ or not. It’s all questionable and it’s all an escalation that nobody really wants.
They wouldn’t go after the users, just the domains and the host servers. Similar to shutting down TPB or other tracker site, they’d go after the site host. True enough, there wouldn’t necessarily be risk to users of those sites, but if they escalated things enough (like if an authoritarian got elected and was so motivated…) they could start taking more severe punitive action. Who knows, they could amend the regulation to go after the users if they wanted - it’s a dangerous precedent either way. Especially when the intent is to ‘protect children’, there’s no limit to how far they might take it in the future.
I’m not familiar with Australian law but I don’t think this really applies. Most countries with internet censorship laws don’t have any guaranteed right to uncensored information. At least in the US, they don’t have ‘censorship’ per se, but they do sometimes ‘block’ an offending site by seizing domains/servers/equipment, and they can force search engines de-list them if the offense is severe enough. If the server is beyond their reach, they can prosecute or sanction the person hosting the site to pressure them into compliance. I can imagine a social media site who refuses to age verify and that hosts pornographic content (cough cough lemmy cough cough) be pursued like a CSAM site.
That doesn’t mean they can’t throw their weight around and bully self-hosters/small-time hobbyists and scare them into compliance. Any western country enacting a law like this could pressure their western trade partners to comply with enforcement efforts. And anyway it isn’t necessarily about the practicality of enforcing the law, so much as giving prosecutors a long leash to make a lot of noise and scare small-time hobbyists out of hosting non compliant sites. Most people can’t afford the headache, even if it isn’t enforceable where they live.