“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift

  • 89 Posts
  • 639 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2024年7月25日

help-circle

  • Yeah, I remember when I tried to run an app on Linux, and it popped up and said: “Oops, the developer of this app you downloaded from the web hasn’t paid $100/year in protection money for verification. Guess you’ll have to navigate into your settings and allow running unverified apps for no reason which normal users with poor tech literacy will find burdensome or scary (and have to look up if and how they can do this, because the only options presented on the popup are ‘Move to Trash’ or ‘Cancel’).”

    You don’t have to defend Apple’s obvious protection racket grift.


    Damn, maybe some people don’t know that none of this is hyperbole – or just really love denying reality and slurping down the dick of their favorite multitrillion-dollar corporation’s OS. You cannot claim it’s “just like Linux” when Apple steps in as a middleman to extort developers out of money.



  • I seriously doubt the community values artist integrity less than “hundreds of existing discussions”

    No, it does not, which is why I applied it only as justification not to enforce the per-day rule as it should’ve been before; violations of those rules are no longer harming anyone in the way the rule was designed to prevent.

    If I dig up an old comic with the word “fuck” in it that was never removed, would you remove it now that curse words are allowed?

    As I said, I don’t enforce rules ex post facto. There was no such rule before, but let’s say it existed. I would not, and you have to know that’s meaningfully different. Punishing someone ex post facto is very different from granting leniency ex post facto. “I’ve decided this is bad, so I’m going to actively punish it retroactively” is extremely different from “I’ve decided this is fine, so I’m no longer going to prosecute it.” You definitely understand that “I’m criminalizing weed, so you who smoked it a year ago are off to jail” and “I’m decriminalizing weed, so I’m going to drop existing charges” are completely different regardless of your stance on weed (although I know roughly what both of ours are).

    And, of course, that’s not even the case here; no actual rule (unlike the “fuck” one) was broken at the time it was posted, so I’m not setting a precedent that we can change the rules at any time and apply them retroactively.

    The point of having rules around content isn’t to punish users who break the rules. It’s to shape this place into the community we want it to be.

    Actually, the rules are around to protect the users and what they contribute here – so they can safely post and comment knowing what’s in-bounds and have grounds to object if they think they were unfairly punished. If I wanted to “shape this place into the community we want it to be”, I could just go around removing whatever because I think it beautifies the community. I don’t apply ex post facto punishments, and I’m likely to grant leniency ex post facto; these two are entirely consistent with each other.

    I can probably link at least one thread where I went off on Beep if you think any of this is meant to stick up for them specifically. I requested to moderate expressly because Beep was ruining the community, and I was even surprised to see them granted amnesty and tried to see a silver lining.

    You’re welcome to think I’m a misguided idealist, but my hobbies are creating copyleft software, copyleft prose, copyleft media, and copyleft data requiring attribution, so if you think any of this is because I’d wish to wipe every one of Beep’s de-attributed posts any less than you, you’re understandably but sorely mistaken. I feel Beep spat in my face personally along with the rest of my community’s. I just don’t have a proper justification within the rules – and that includes the per-day limit applied as a backdoor in a way that’s not in the spirit of that rule.

    That said, I will show no leniency to intentionally de-attributed posts in the future, and I’ll be making sure all have proper credit.


  • I believe that, in which case “that’s not from Trump” is something they’re in no position to say matter-of-factly; they’re just guessing (and I think poorly, at that). It’s just palm-reading the post and then giving a definitive, with no caveats, “Nope, Trump didn’t write this.”

    I linked to the article because trying to definitively say Trump didn’t write something definitionally has to be reserved for fake posts, not real ones that come from his account with no disclaimer and no later admission.


  • The only rule Beep was breaking at the time was the per-day post limit. While cleaning that up would be tedious, it’d still be doable; the main reason we haven’t (that I know of) is that those posts are long-since submitted and have hundreds of existing discussions which other users contributed to. The per-day post limit is mainly relevant for new posts, so enforcing that rule as it should’ve been when they were posted wouldn’t really accomplish anything except make a lot of user comments inaccessible. It’d be functionally random, too – starting at the first posts, leaving post n and post n + 1, then removing everything until the next 24 hours after post n, loop until we get to the last post they made before it was upped to 5 and Beep was forced to stop breaking it. (That wasn’t your question; just addressing it since it has the more complicated answer.)

    As for the altered comics, there was no rule in place at the time that comics need to be unaltered and have attribution. We (at least I) don’t do ex post facto rule enforcement. Of the existing reports for posts/comments made before dohpaz42’s rule changes, none (that I saw) were for violations of the rules that existed at the time, so the only reports I ended up acting on were the ones that violated Lemmy.World’s terms of service.


  • Sure, and if you want to argue “a staffer did it”, then “staying on point”/“generally cohesive” is a stretch to make the argument work. This has extremely jumpy flow, and trying to move the standard further back and say “bUt NoT fOr TrUmP” just turns this whole thing into an unfalsifiable hypothesis facilitated by an infinitely movable goalpost. I can point out why it’s so jumpy (any literate person should be able to), but I’m confident it’ll be met with, again, “tRuMp StAnDaRdS tHo!!”.


    Edit: More importantly, though, saying confidently that “it’s not from Trump” is hilariously unfounded. I’m not arguing it is or is not from Trump, but rather that saying anything definitively like that is absurd.






  • The sheer existence of this acts as a warning and hurdle for politicians

    This will never be seen by federal or state-level legislators or executives. If you visited the website, you saw the unanimous support in California for the age verification bill. In the event it’s sent to legislators as a link, there’s almost zero chance they’ll visit, let alone read it through. In the narrow chance that, like, one out of thousands actually reads it, it will not act as a warning to them, let alone a hurdle. It doesn’t materially threaten anything they’re doing – not in a technical sense and not in the sense that anybody but an excruciatingly tiny minority will actually adopt it.

    Niche communities like this wildly overestimate their reach and influence among the people outside of them. I don’t like it either, but I try to be mindful of it.

    Follow https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2501:_Average_Familiarity this link for a transcript of this xkcd comic.

    See also:








  • Sounds a lot like: “We broadly support North Korea, but that’s too embarrassing to say directly, so we’ll just shitpost about it like a neo-Nazi would when asked a direct question about their abhorrent beliefs – afraid of frightening away the normies by revealing their ‘power level’.”

    It’s comforting to me that you have to carry the level of shame that your beliefs are unspeakable in spaces dominated by sane people – and are barely even speakable in this deranged hellhole for fear that your monstrous beliefs will surface above the irony poisoning and scare away the few people with functioning consciences who stumbled into this from the front page.