InternetTubes

These rules just make lemmy.world to be a poor man's substitute to reddit, and seems to go against what the fediverse was all about.

First of all, permanent bans. These are great when you deal with people who are never going to change and who are clearly breaking the ToS. The problem is, people change, and admin moderation never is 100% right because no one is 100% right all the time, especially when having to deal with a massive scale of users. Considering how integral social networks are to people's lives, and that some people are literally children who are growing up, we really should be given a remediational system with them rather than simply "instaban" if this is supposed to be a better social network than the commercial fast buck alternatives.

Second, if you permanently ban users, you run into the same problems as reddit. What happens to all of their previous comments? Do you clear them out from the system even though they had nothing to do with the ban? Do you give users the option to delete it? Do you keep in on the platform without their consent? Do you allow banned users the possibility to export their comment onto other fediverse hosts who might not have the same opinion in regards to a ban as you? How are you complying with the GDPR?

Third, if you try to suggest that a banned user can't come back and use your platform, what about when they comment from another lemmy host account? Are you going to break the fediverse to enforce bans, or is it local account based only? Are you going to ban lemmy hosts if they refuse to permaban the same people you pemaban?

Fourth, this sort of seems like a three strike system. So, like a "look, I got two strikes way back and suddenly now twenty years after I get a strike, and because of those two, I get banned".

Overall, it's very, very vague. Attacking and harrassing groups sounds pretty clear, until you consider how easily it could be applied to mere criticism about a group someone doesn't like. "participation in individual communities will only be acceptable on the condition that you abide by their rules" seems pretty clear, except when you consider communities whose moderators remove comments under false premises of rule breaking without any explanation. "You waive Lemmy.World ... from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities." - I see many lawyers try to sneak this one, but there are very few courts that wouldn't allow me to file a claim even with this under a Terms of Service I haven't even had to explicitly indicate I agree with if, say, lemmy.world decided to violate my GDPR protections because censors in China didn't like a comment I made about Tiananmen Square, requested my personal private data lemmy.world has on me, and they decided to give it to them.

This isn't the solution people think it is. The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site. That is, assuming Alexander Hanff, the one carrying on this narrative since 2016, is correct and interpreted the response correctly. In Article 5 of the 2002/58/EC there is a second paragraph that states the following:

Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications and the related traffic data when carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.

I'm no lawyer, but I tell you who has them in droves, Google and YouTube, whom I'm sure have already discussed whether their primary means of business revenue, ads, could be construed as a commercial transaction for which evidence is needed. I'm not sure how a two page reply from the EU commission to his request telling him Article 5 applies really helps the guy out if Article 5 also includes the means by which YouTube is allowed to run scripts that provide evidence that ads have been able to be properly reproduced.

Still, assuming Alexander Hanff is right, Google just needs to add a consent form and begin blocking access to all content if users disagree, so it seems to me his claim is damned if he is right, and damned if he isn't right.

This right here. Hamas should have just owner up to it, Israel was already doing a good job of damaging its intervention, all the hospital issue has done is shift a lot of the protests and discussions onto a very shaky platform surrounding it, which will just disengage people who would have otherwise criticized it and make those still protesting because of it more radicalized into fictional narratives. Hamas, once again, has played itself at the cost of Palestinian lives, this time by giving Israel an excuse to gaslight what they are doing with the presence of a false narrative.

Please do it and convince Steve Huffman as well. The fediverse always welcomes more users.

Yes, though it was really reddit's decision on it, so thanks spez.

Israel has never needed permission before. The US isn't going to criticize one of, if not its only, core ally in the Middle East, at least any more than it has to, for something it isn't going to be able to get it to stop and would only break diplomatic ties. But it is clearly pressuring Israel to tone it down. It's odd how the criticism against the US keeps going from "its getting to involved in everything" to "its not doing enough".

It probably would be easier for public pressure to coerce US imperialism in the zone if there wasn't Ruso-Chino imperialism also trying to influence through Syria and Iran, with North Korean weapon imports to boot. They can both be condemned, but one losing is clearly going to favor the other, so it's hardly going to fix the problem, it's just moving it elsewhere.

Bring back BBS!

If it were in Europe, sure. As it is, Europe largely cares because of the game US-imperialism and ruso-chino-imperialism play with the Middle East. Otherwise, it would be like your typical random country where this shit happens - international condemnation and no action.

Seems like you can replace anti-Semites with any populist reactionary in this quote. But in terms of an argument, I have seen far too many just end up with replies that ignore most of it and just stick to whatever crumbs they still see as an opening, specially when they know they can intimidate and disconcert by number.

Very few ever "fall silently", as this quote portrays, it is either a forced silence by the conversation being closed by moderators who are either complicit or getting bombarded with intimidation and alarmism themselves, or by branching out into gaslighting far outside of the discussion. Getting the last word is worth shit, much like silence itself. But with so many thinking silence indicates rightness, is it a wonder that so much of the word is addicted to the most permanent form of silence, death? History is written by the victors, upon the body of corpses.

I can tell you this: Trump isn't the sort who will ever fall silent.

Yeah, Israel should only have gone as far as putting Palestinians into concentration/re-education camps with a healthy side-dose of black market organ trading and forcing Palestinian families to live with an Israeli supervisor, if CCP's example is to be followed.

At least China is making it clear where it is on the lines being drawn in the global geopolitics. What I don't get is social media like YouTube still sucking up to them and censoring things like 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. It's very easy to support Palestine against Israel, but what Palestinians really need is support that isn't built up on bad faith (a.k.a. the people also supporting Hamas and their terrorist acts or countries that clearly don't really give a sh-t in other circumstances). As it is and because a lot of it is being built on that bad faith, it's allowing neozionists in Israel to get away with far more than they would normally be getting away with.

The problem is people are given little power, a vote every couple of years, and even when a significant number of people don't vote for the winning party, everyone in the country as a whole is slapped all of the responsibility by the international community and those in power aren't interested in representing anyone but themselves. Everyone criticizes like this, regardless of how much nuance they demand people take into consideration when it involves their own country.

it is an offense teaching suffering .. from your 1st world sofa.

I sit on a 1st world sofa, but I try not to teach people on what to do when being bombed.

proceeds to try to teach about suffering and what should be allowed to be done from a 1st world sofa

So in other words, a hypocrite by your own account.

Hamas is a terrorist group. Stop defending terrorists. You can argue for Palestinian rights without defending terrorists and terrorist acts. Fighting against an oppressor is not the same as killing civilians at a music festival.