Shit.

Freedom subject to the instance you are signed up to (and posting to)

Referring to the underlying software, not to moderation. Which is sort of a corollary to federation, but not entirely when you look at something like Bluesky where you can federate but don’t truly run your own “Bluesky”. Sure there’s implicit trust in what the instance is running since you aren’t auditing it, but I’m willing to see shades of grey and that this is better in that regard than corporate social media.

If you are looking for this in a community called “Lemmy Shitpost”

Not really (although a number of people on Lemmy put in the effort to make clever, homebrewed shitposts, which is beside the point). Sometimes Lemmy Shitpost just has funny stuff that makes for a more well-rounded social media experience. I never said I’m only looking for thought-provoking interactions; intelligent company doesn’t have to be self-serious. The whole reason I even made my original comment is that I’m persistently disappointed that I can’t walk into a thread about an obvious fiction made as a joke and think that Lemmy collectively understands the difference. Something that is funny turns into a source of frustration when I consider user behavior I’ve seen on Lemmy before.

but the people you’re speaking of (ones who don’t check the community name before taking this for granted) are probably not going to be reading these comments either

Genuinely fair, well-considered point. I appreciate it and will consider it more heavily the next time I see something like this.

• I like the Reddit/threadiverse format.
• I like the fact that it’s free as in freedom.
• I like federation.
• I like that there are intelligent people; the collective is extremely frustrating and intellectually lazy, but there are actual thought-provoking interactions by people who put in actual effort.

You’ll be tagged as the one who thought a shitpost was serious

Please do tag me; tag me as the one who didn’t think a shitpost was serious but that Lemmy users collectively cannot be trusted to tell the difference.

Shit, no, I think you’re right, actually: maybe Lemmy are worth taking seriously because I remember they were smart enough to correct your stupid, confidently incorrect ass the other day with “hurr durr Windows malware can’t run through WINE”.

You know what, I’ll just copy–paste this here, although I’ve never actually hoarded examples of all the times Lemmy was essentially as dumb as Reddit:

Several weeks ago, there was this post in a news community to a BBC News article. It was a real article; no tricks, correct headline. But the link was a 404. When I found it, it was upvoted about 20–0. I downvoted it as obviously nonfunctional but also commented remarking that it’s a 404 and giving the OP the correct link. When I came back to that post a couple hours later hoping to upvote a fixed link, the link was unchanged, it was upvoted 50–1 (my downvote), and it had one comment (mine) upvoted 1–0. (Edit: I checked, to preemptively clarify, that this wasn’t a “me” problem.)

Lemmy users collectively have the media literacy of a housefly.

The people I party with aren’t morons like the average Lemmy user.

Lemmy will and does believe literally anything; I’m sorry that I take it within that context.

And then everyone stood up and clapped.

Guys, you can slap text over anyone’s portrait and say they did literally anything; it doesn’t make it true.

Edit: Oh, Lemmy does not like being told that they can’t be trusted to have basic media literacy.

“I’d just assume” unprompted is functionally the same as “I think”; nobody first asked you “well if you had to assume, what would’ve happened?” We’re all adults here; we all understand what words mean.

And I used “provocative” because you’re directly implying a form of patriarchical censorship for inherently one of two reasons or some combination: the patriarchical system 1) thinks it’s too provocative or 2) thinks it’s too superfluous, and (2) isn’t per se patriarchy; reasonable minds can differ on whether the scene merited inclusion. I’m sure it wasn’t like that scene from The Room where they make a big deal out of Mark’s clean-shaven face; I’m sure the protein filaments growing out of Robbie’s armpits weren’t the nominal objective of the scene. Thus I assumed you were referring to the only one that’s strictly, inherently patriarchical for which there wouldn’t be a more plausible explanation.

You’re just assuming that (practically unfalsifiably) when the director suggests nothing of the sort, when footage gets cut from movies literally all the time for every reason under the Sun, and when there’s shit in that movie an order of magnitude more provocative (see: the skin room) than a woman with hairy armpits (let alone historically accurately).

The Wuthering Heights director Emerald Fennell said it was “unfortunate” that a scene showing Margot Robbie’s hairy armpits did not make the final cut, because women in period adaptations are often shown with clean-shaven underarms.

Robbie’s character, Cathy, had “extremely hairy armpits” in the 2026 adaptation of the novel, but “unfortunately the scene that we see them didn’t make it in there”, said the director.

Cathy having unshaven pits “was so important to me”, she said, adding that she often wonders “where are the razors that these women are using?” when watching Jane Austen adaptations.

“They’re all kind of hairless like eels. I’m like: ‘What’s going on? It’s completely mad.’”

I think something pretty normal and understandable that people – who are used to being bombarded by other, very vocal, people’s paraphilias online – will immediately and erroneously assume is something sexual.

Nah, I’m with them. The average Lemmy user is stupid as fuck and willing to believe anything that even vaguely conforms to their biases, and I 100% believe the majority of upvotes are from people who thought this screenshot is real.

Several weeks ago, there was this post in a news community to a BBC News article. It was a real article; no tricks, correct headline. But the link was a 404. When I found it, it was upvoted about 20–0. I downvoted it as obviously nonfunctional but also commented remarking that it’s a 404 and giving the OP the correct link. When I came back to that post a couple hours later hoping to upvote a fixed link, the link was unchanged, it was upvoted 50–1 (my downvote), and it had one comment (mine) upvoted 1–0. (Edit: I checked, to preemptively clarify, that this wasn’t a “me” problem.)

The lack of scrutiny Lemmy applies as a collective is fucking appalling, and the level of introspection they have about it is somehow even worse.

“Paragon Solutions” really does sound like an evil corporation within the Deus Ex universe.

I’ll bet they’re using dirty rounding tricks too to misrepresent the price. For all we know, it could be as high as 6600 Iranian rials. Outrageous.

For those unfamiliar with British journalism, the Daily Mirror (sometimes The Mirror) is a shitty British tabloid. If you see them, the Daily Mail, The Sun, the Daily Express, etc. reporting on something and think “I can’t believe the media is covering this crap”, you should probably check to make sure it’s actually “the media” and not just the subset “the shitty tabloid media that will print literally anything idiots will click on”.

Veruca Salt-ass portrait.

Saved you a click: they’re reporting on a minor problem with iPhones where “A strong magnetic field can interfere with OIS and closed-loop AF” and then link to a Samsung patent trying to mitigate this problem.

Lens-position sensors respond to magnetic fields. If you place a magnet near these sensors, the magnetic field will interfere with or temporarily disable the sensors. This can degrade the sensors’ accuracy and limit the range of movement available to the lenses. The camera will continue to take photos with other means of stabilisation but without the benefit of OIS and closed-loop AF.

Damn, it sure needed that scary title invocative of data loss and severe hardware damage are you fucking kidding. Garbage clickbait.

Edit: the Apple support article was published 22 January 2024, so real groundbreaking reporting here; the patent was published 14 May this year.

The only thing I could think of when I read their comment is that they’re calling cigarette smokers “losers” while spending their time calling cigarette users “losers” in a meme community on a backwater social media site.

I laughed; if I smoked, I’d have laughed harder.