Skavau @ Skavau @piefed.social

Posts

816

Comments

191

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

As a sidenote, I remember that UK has an odd and ancient "law" stating something in the lines "" (i.e. being anti-monarchy and advocating for the end of monarchy, even without any violent language/means but a pacific defense of anti-monarchy). I couldn't find it, nor I can remember the exact phrasing, but such a "law" threatens prison time for those who "dare" to "offend" the crowniness of UK Crown. Also, I'm not sure to what extent this law is applied in practice.

Given there's an active pro-republican campaign site I'd wager not at all.

If countries are capable of passing draconian laws against their own citizens, don't expect that those same countries couldn't go further to impose these laws beyond their own lawns, especially in times of interconnectedness.

UK against the USA? I think the UK isn't winning that.

"platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks."

I'll also note that this doesn't seem to even be in the official documentation.

No, I mean I chose lemmy.world as the instance to show the announcement on.

Not when it comes to tech. You think the USA would let Saudi Arabia force the total shut-down of a USA-based site because they allowed people to make fun of Islam? Come on. Saudi Arabia just quiety blocks sites.

UK doesn’t have enough pull to start extraditing thousands of people for not complying with their weirdo laws.

I agree with you there too. The forum owners here fear Ofcom pressuring their hosts to force compliance, not extradition. I think its misguided and unlikely (especially for small arms of the fediverse) but it is what it is.

I think in practice Ofcom would just geoblock your site specifically.

Reddit is super-screwed then because its full of users doing exactly that anywhere this topic comes up.

Saudi Arabia has no soft power here. UK does.

Not saying that UK will here (I think they won't), but the relationship dynamics are a bit different.

They believe that Ofcom could pressure their hosts to cut their services off if they don't comply with the act, or believe they could be fined.

To be clear, the specifics in the act go beyond not specifically hosting pornographic content.

Currently Twitter is doing the bare minimum by simply allowing UK users to bypass the age-checks by setting their location to another country.

You think Netanyahu, who managed to string Trump along to attack Iran, wouldn't have managed the same with a much more Hawkish Clinton?

More hawkish? Debateable in the context of Israel. In any case, this is an argument for them being the same, not different. And "attacking Iran" is not the same as occupying it as you initially claimed.

Also we saw that Trump, after the bombing immediately wanted the whole thing to be done, claimed huge success and got a ceasefire between Israel and Iran going.

And how do you know Clinton wouldn't do this as well? What has Clinton said about Iran post-2016?

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted Iranians to know what she was prepared to do as president in hopes of deterring an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

Nice omission of context there, pal. Clinton has always had liberal hawk credentials, but I don't see a realistic circumstance where she would have ever launched a ground invasion of Iran.

In addition, you're going back to the 2008 primary there.

When exactly did Clinton commit to an invasion of Iran?

I can imagine Ofcoms head exploding at the concept of the Fediverse.

"What's a Lemmy?"

Those are UK sites that shut down though?

I mean are there are any new announcements

Because it illustrates the underlying issue: who owns the community, who gets to decide what happens to it, who gets to decide whether each individual user gets to use it, or to be moved elsewhere to a different instance entirely that they may know nothing about?

I mean again, this is just down to a fundamental difference between how you and I view communities. I view them as modular concepts essentially temporarily on a server space, being able to move if they do please. And the federative nature of the Fediverse means that badly run communities can be abandoned for another one with the same name.

An example here that's relevant: I unilaterally just moved obscuremusic from lemm.ee to piefed after lemm.ee shut down. It's a small community, but was it wrong for me to do that?

I would be in favour of automated prompts going out to all users informing them of community moves.

Currently it belongs to the mods, as too happened on Reddit, and to the admins. Lemmy is extremely authoritarian in nature btw, even more so than Reddit, e.g. Reddit does all of: (1) notifying users of a moderation event (e.g. post/comment removal) while Lemmy users in contrast may never find out that anything ever happened to their content

Reddit mods can absolutely silently remove posts without telling the poster. I don't know why you think they can't.

(2) providing a means of appeal or at least communication with the people responsible for that removal, chiefly the modmail but also similar means to contact admins

I don't think this is specifically omitted, just modmail infrastructure doesn't exist properly. You can still do it the old fashioned way by DMing mods.

To be clear, it's not my only reason - but it's the largest one.

Do we have site of any Lemmy instances that defederate from us? It'll be interesting to see if many do.

They wouldn't need to do that. If they're not in the UK, they wouldn't need to do anything. They're too small and outside Ofcom's power.

Lemmy.zip already geoblocked the UK because even though its hosted from Finland, a UK guy runs it. So he is in theory liable.

Oh yeah I appreciate that, but under an official migration system - they would have to get blahaj's approval. Which they wouldn't give if the community erupted.

But again, this happened without a migration system anyway - so what difference does it make?

You know I'm one of the rarer people pushed here because essentially all the communities are taken on Reddit. Every name for every possible community is captured. The Lemmyverse offers way more opportunity for community building.