I truly appreciate the random non-sequitur comment about my instance tacked on to the end without explanation. It really completes the man yelling on the sidewalk vibe.
It is not the length that makes your posts tedious, it’s the weird Russia fanboyism.
How tedious.
I legit had to check whether this was The Onion. This is such an absurd thing to announce it seems like a parody of their actions.
I don’t trust it because there’s no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it’s just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it’s a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there’s a built-in way to move on when one goes down.
BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn’t in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that’s almost certainly not going to happen.
Ah, I misread the quoted image. I will edit my earlier replies to let people know my assumption was incorrect.
Edit: I misread the posted image, OP is suggesting rules to filter new accounts, not with a new account themselves.
Nothing said why he got banned, but he got banned with a brand new account. The new account isn’t the ban reason itself, but it’s the reason the mods would be on a hair trigger for just the whiff of a problem.
Edit: I misread the posted image, OP is suggesting rules to filter new accounts, not with a new account themselves.
A brand new account getting banned tells us almost nothing about whether the ban was warranted. Brand new accounts talking about automod are either evading a ban or have history on their main account they don’t want the mods to see. These might be horrible power-abusing mods, but even if there wasn’t a larger history not seen here, banning a brand new account just because the vibes seem off is a-ok in my book.
It’s certainly very feasible. They just would be very unlikely to be commenting on or printing this story if that was the whole story.
There’s a low chance that this is a story about actual shortages that would indicate a weakness in Israel’s missile defenses and very high chance this is about the weapons industry trying to milk more money from the US and Israeli governments.
Israel arrested some journalists for merely reporting on missile strikes. I have a hard time believing an Israeli weapons exec is dishing with a foreign paper on their weakness or the Jerusalem Post would get approval from the censors to write about it, even if the Financial Times had already done so.
Call them antisemitic like they did with the antiwar protests. And they’ll have all the centrist press reinforcing it so they’ll never need to consider whether there’s any deeper issue they should be thinking about.
If you (or anyone else)
Voters are a spectrum. Some number of people in OhStepYellingAtMe’s rough demographic either started out less engaged or have a more visceral reaction and won’t vote. A reliable Democratic vote being demotivated means an unreliable vote may already be lost. Not threatening to withhold your individual vote doesn’t mean comments like this aren’t a warning sign.
A license that requires source. And since then there have been many different licenses, all with the same requirement. Giving someone a binary for free and saying they’re allowed to edit the hex codes and redistribute it doesn’t mean it’s open source. A license to use and modify is necessary but not sufficient for something to be open source. You need to provide the source.
“Open source” is not a license, it’s a description. Things can be free with no license restrictions and still not be “open source”.
A freely available and unencumbered binary (e.g., the model weights) isn’t the same thing as open-source. The source is the data. You can’t rebuild the model without the data, nor can you verify that it wasn’t intentionally biased or crippled.
At least during this period of anger we won’t have to also deal with the gnawing realization that they’re 100% going to lose. Harris may still lose, and this could certainly help her along the way, but it’s not a certainty, which is kind of better?
I think there’s gray areas where someone comes in hot to play devil’s advocate and if they have a history that looks like a normal contrarian person elsewhere they might just get a removal and/or a warning, but if they’re a 2 day old account with 5 one word comments, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Granted, you shouldn’t expect mods to try to figure out your personal history and state of mind to know you weren’t trying to troll in your very first post in their community, but it’s at least something to try to sort out those gray area comments. Or something to review if the user appeals their ban.
And yeah, taking your bans with you in migration would be the cost of maintaining that history. It’s a commitment to owning your own posts and history.
From experience moderating on Reddit, user histories were pretty useful in judging whether they just made a mistake or were ban evading or trolling. If a fresh account drops in with a trollish comment as their first interaction with the community, they might just catch a ban rather than being treated as a good faith poster who came in too hot and deserves a second chance.
So if you migrate accounts in Lemmy, you’ll have to pay that price over again and risk more strict moderation because you have no history, whereas a Mastodon-like link to their previous account would establish a baseline.
The context is they’re positively stating the “men in women’s sports” part of that exchange.
You do realize people can log in to websites from anywhere in the world, right? You see, there’s this series of tubes…