Another reason right to repair is needed

and that’s the only way it’s ever used.

Kind of an extreme claim which is definitely not true.

It’s the best example of what it’s trying to describe. It’s a hypocrite of a phrase, engaging in what it condemns.

So phrases are by themselves guilty of word crimes? A cliche isn’t just an often repeated series of words, it’s a tired idea. “Thought terminating cliche” is itself a thought terminating cliche if it’s being used that way (such as to shut down someone who was engaging in good faith and happened to use a common expression as part of that), but that doesn’t mean this category of expression doesn’t exist. Of course it exists, the modern internet is plagued with it because it’s full of propagandists with an interest in pulling people’s levers with minimal effort and no interest in argument.

This is for sure an unpopular opinion lol

If you are at the point where you are having to worry about government or corporate entities setting traps at the local library? You… kind of already lost.

What about just a blackmailer assuming anyone booting an OS from a public computer has something to hide? And then they have write access and there’s no defense, and it doesn’t have to be everywhere because people seeking privacy this way will have to be picking new locations each time. An attack like that wouldn’t have to be targeted at a particular person.

Isn’t it risky plugging usb drives into untrusted machines?

IIRC it spammed websites with traffic, didn’t conceal your IP at all, and some people got arrested for using it to make some websites go down for a very brief period. Basically a way to use people who didn’t know what they were doing as cannon fodder

I support and agree with the concept of free speech and the 1st (though this topic isn’t really specifically about the US). But a culture of tolerance is important for free expression, which isn’t really about overwhelming the “wrong” perspectives with mob rule. Downvoting all the vegan memes to make sure they don’t forget people disagree with them isn’t what I would describe as truth and leadership.

Could you elaborate? Does HOA mean something different in other countries?

Home owner’s association; when you buy a house and it is part of a HOA, you have to sign a contract to join the HOA as a requirement of buying, which means you have to pay dues and abide by the rules of the organization, and you have to require the next buyer to also join in order to sell your house.

It sounds as if you’re describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the “marketplace” isn’t about which arguments are good or anything like that, it’s about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people’s emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.

Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it’s worth considering ways to not be like that.

Do you think the “cost” of “being in a society” is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I’m not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn’t all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that’s fine, it’s not a “cost”, I am not entitled to or being “paid” through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn’t work, it’s not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.

While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can’t really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.

Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.

Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it’s a legitimate thing to want.

IMO this is mainly only a problem because Lemmy is small enough that everyone is browsing all and there’s no realistic natural separation of users. Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.

Also recently got banned from c/imageai for downvoting “too much”?

My guess is it’s because there are a bunch of people who hate AI in general, and they want votes to instead reflect which images people like or don’t like for what they are instead of every post having a negative score.

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

I don’t have an issue with reasonable moderation, but I object to the idea that every pattern of moderation should just be accepted and that censorship isn’t a problem worth worrying about.

Reddit doesn’t have a modlog, so most of the removed comments are lost forever and there is no accountability for them, but a few of them can be seen through Reveddit, and the ones I see are not off topic or ideological rants. For instance the first one I see is

Are they going to shoot up the wrong car with innocent ladies in it again looking for this guy? Edit: Guess they managed to take him down without hitting any civilians, I guess good job for only killing the bad guy

Obviously referring to the Chris Dorner shootings which would be very relevant here, in a very reasonable way. I think it’s fair to assume that r/news moderators simply don’t want that guy mentioned at all.

It used to be a better place for arguments

I think it’s actually a serious problem if the most prominent places for discussion are heavily censored

IMO for some people arguing is a form of intimacy

Can’t track mouse movements on mobile though