Yep. Socialist orgs are generally public-facing and have no interest in secrecy, we’re not hiding from people. We don’t vet people before letting them see meetings like the neo-nazis and many politicians do, we’re basically the same inside as we are outside. And it pays off: there’s no fake persona to uphold, no paranoia about federal infiltration. Just walk in and have a look around, we’re here to build a mass movement, not some arrogant secret conspiracy cell.

Trump promoting the best commie coffee

There’s only one better coffee promotion I’ve seen.

Soon we’ll be routing our internet connections like flight paths to get around sanctions.

If the CIA agents in Havana don’t get Cuban healthcare benefits, they should just quit.

Yes it’s somewhat sanitised, all social media is sanitised.

And it’s all sanitized for good reason - the closest places to unsanitized, such as freespeechextremist, are literally just spambots, molesters, troll neo-nazis and people mechanically incapable of holding a conversation without bursting into nonsense screeds in all caps. Effectively, just the people no-one else wants to talk to.

As for the RedNote sanitizing, some of the ones I’ve seen newcomers getting tripped up on are rules which would make our local social media better. They seem aimed at countering grifters/influencers, sexualization for popularity (not being a prude, rather, there are plenty of other places for that content) and similar negative trends associated with TikTok.

I’ll look around to see if I can find those show segments online, but as for ‘are they panicking?’, mass media has a vested interest in influencing public opinion (that’s effectively the only reason a private business bothers with news) and therefore control over public opinion. If the people who own the show and the channel give orders, the writers and actors probably won’t risk getting fired. (oh, and obligatory quick clip to demonstrate what ownership looks like, for those who haven’t seen it: “This Is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy”)

So, with that in mind, recall the reactions of almost all mass media to the UnitedHealthcare assassination: consistent critique and denouncement. Surely this wasn’t how all the news anchors felt, given how positive general opinion was! The people with ownership and executive power over these media channels obviously don’t want the idea of citizens shooting the dangerously rich and powerful to get popular, so we saw their ideas echoed in all the news.

Compare that to here: media channels outside of China don’t really want that counter-narrative to gain traction. It goes against their inherent interest of influencing public opinion, it’s a competitor which all the biggest media companies can agree to call bad news. So I have no doubt this unexpected and surprising turn would make them panic.

edit: the clips I found from Colbert and The Daily Show were a surprisingly mixed bag. For example, this Daily Show clip comes off more as a satirical jab at the US than any panic.

Personally, I suspect the bigger problem for their platform will be handling the contrasting values of Western social media norms against their own.

Even sinophobic reactionaries have been pointing out for years that “[Douyin] Chinese TikTok is Wholesome, American TikTok is Corrupting our Youths!” with product influencers/grifters, rampant sexualization up to and including pornography, etc., albeit the reactionaries are interpreting the difference from a conspiratorial moral-panic viewpoint claiming it’s weaponization by The Chinese Government to corrode Western society, rather than the difference being that the US TikTok is social media with liberalist freedoms combined with the capitalist pursuit of profit above society, and is in line with the content on Xitter, reddit and other familiar social media.

The point being, that people rise to the top of TikTok through sexual suggestion, flashing symbols of wealth and other normalized habits which I’ve heard are banned on Lil’RedBook (which sounds like a great decision!).

Now added to my comment :)

Now added to my comment :)

Now added to my comment :)

I am clearly not asking how this differs from other platforms. I’ve been here since 2022.

While I doubt the concept is unique, the script is: a keyboard shortcut will check the clipboard for a YouTube link and then show launcher options for mpv or yt-dlp, including launch arguments for lower quality format and audio only. It launches that in a terminal for easier handling when yt-dlp doesn’t work properly (much more common if using proxies, but also if a video is age-restricted or deleted).

So when I see a yt link here, I can just copy it, keyboard shortcut and then it’s playing in my local video player.

edit: here’s the script. It assumes xsel (clipboard access), rofi (menu creator), gnome-terminal (terminal) and notify-send (system notification on failure) are installed and working, you’ll need to replace any which don’t match your system. My DE just runs it in bash when the shortcut is entered.

#!/bin/bash

ARR=()
ARR+=("mpv full")
ARR+=("mpv medium")
ARR+=("yt-dlp")

NORMAL_URL=`xsel -ob | sed -r "s/.*(v=|\/)([a-zA-Z0-9_-]{11}).*/https:\/\/youtube.com\/watch?v=\2/"`

CHOICE=$(printf '%s\n' "${ARR[@]}" | rofi -dmenu -p "mpv + yt-dlp from clipboard")
DOWNLOAD="false"
MPV="false"
OPTIONS=""

if [ "$CHOICE" = "mpv full" ]; then
	MPV="true"
fi

if [ "$CHOICE" = "mpv medium" ]; then
	MPV="true"
	OPTIONS+="'--ytdl-format=bv*[height<721]+ba' "
fi

if [ "$CHOICE" = "yt-dlp" ]; then
	DOWNLOAD="true"
fi

if [ $MPV == "true" ]; then
	COMMAND="mpv $OPTIONS $NORMAL_URL"
	gnome-terminal --title "$NORMAL_URL" -- bash -c "echo $COMMAND;$COMMAND;if [ \$? -ne 0 ]; then notify-send 'yt-dlp failed' $NORMAL_URL; bash; fi;"
elif [ $DOWNLOAD == "true" ]; then
	COMMAND="yt-dlp $OPTIONS $NORMAL_URL"
        gnome-terminal --title "$NORMAL_URL" -- bash -c "echo $COMMAND;$COMMAND;if [ \$? -ne 0 ]; then notify-send 'yt-dlp failed' $NORMAL_URL; bash; fi;"
fi

Spice/spiced could work. But it’s still an allusion, not sure if that defeats the point.

For example, 4chan forcibly invented the use of the ok hand for “white power”, as a collective prank

Which, outside of specific contexts where you’re already confident someone is a WN, was quickly forgotten and never really took off. It’s not a great example of a social shift.

I still use Invidious and Piped for searches and looking at comments, but they are currently broken (as far as I’ve seen).

(Conditionally) journals, studies and some books. And, for that matter, most television, film and music.

Particularly when paying is not supporting the creator, only the publisher.

These points both make sense given ideal conditions. People and businesses should have liberty over themselves, with the government serving as a neutral foundation representing the interest of voters.

Unfortunately, these ideal conditions don’t exist. The government isn’t neutral, but that’s not because of themselves or a democratic decision, but because businesses have more power to influence politics than you and me. Look at the major shareholders of mass media and social media, look at fundraisers for political parties, look at the laws made to bias the system. The government is evidently not a neutral foundation or a representative of the common people, but a dictatorship of the owning class (I’m using the term dictatorship not to imply one person ruling, but rather, that business owners as a class dictate the actions of politicians and therefore the government). And while it’s easy to consider this a crony capitalism or corporatocracy, it’s ultimately just capitalism itself taking its logical course, as business owners generally have a common class interest and the government cannot work without the complicity of business owners. We see this consistently in capitalist states, all the way back to the first ones. It’s not a fluke, it’s the power of capital.

We also see the trend of monopolization emerge - more money makes more money, more resources makes more resources, so small businesses are generally muscled out or incorporated into larger companies unless the government can force them to stop. So while you technically don’t have to interact with a specific business at all, there are many industries where you are effectively forced to interact with a small collection of the most powerful businesses or even a duopoly, even more so if you don’t have enough money to be picky.

So, while I agree, the government is supposed to be representing voters’ best interests, and business should not have power comparable to governance, they don’t represent us and businesses do govern, and history shows this won’t be changed through the electoral system they control. It has only changed when the worker class, as opposed to the businesses, has become the class directing the government.

But that’s just it - it’s not a useful heuristic, it’s a delusional framework, even more than the geocentric model was. We were mapping the planets onto that, but that didn’t make it useful.

2. There appears to be a lack of “centrist”, non-political, or right-wing voices (and I don’t mean extreme MAGA-type views, but rather more moderate conservative positions).

I see plenty of them. They’re just mostly on other instances to me (like your home instance).

Furthermore, while it’s tempting to see the so-called ‘left’ and ‘right’ as equivalent mirrors needing to be balanced for diversity, the reality is far from it. After seeing Wolfballs in action (that instance died before the reddit API fiasco), I can tell you we don’t need to be balanced out by ‘white genocide’ discussions and more open anti-semitism. I know that’s not what you proposed, but it’s to illustrate that sometimes there isn’t value in arbitrary balancing the ‘left’ and ‘right’ on these websites.

is it a natural result of Lemmy’s community-driven nature?

It’s also a result of Lemmy’s history and appeal. When reddit went on sprees of deleting subreddits, the right-wing hate groups made their own reddit clones, anarchists typically went to Raddle, and when GenZedong and ChapoTrapHouse went down, they went to Lemmygrad.ml (as a result, it became the largest instance) and created Hexbear respectively. So there is a long history of larger communist communities from day one which was the status quo until the reddit API fiasco.

The Fediverse also tends to attract anarchists and other socialists by the appeal of its decentralized nature, along with a few right-libertarians who see it as an anti-censorship tool. So one could say there’s a bias there.

How might we encourage more diverse political perspectives while still maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment?

That’s tough, because you inherently limit which political perspectives you can encourage.

Why is a private entity significantly different from a government entity? If a coalition of private entities (say, facebook, twitter, youtube, … ) controls most of the commons, they have the power to dictate everything beyond the fringes. We can already see this kind of collusion in mass media to the extent that it’s labeled a propaganda model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

I just don’t think the private/gov dichotomy is enough to decide when censorship and moderation is valid.

which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring?

Another perspective on the Lemmy situation is that, for example, I can sincerely say I believe free speech has merits while creating a book club where political discussion isn’t allowed. Some would call that censorship, but restricting a certain community doesn’t mean I approve of unconditional societal censorship. “Censorship”, like many abstract concepts in the liberalist worldview, doesn’t make sense to think of as a universal value, but rather in contexts, like you pointed out with hate speech removal being in line with the beliefs of most people on the main Lemmy instances.

There are some concepts, for example, that I think are fine to discuss in an academic situation but should be censored in public spaces, especially when it comes to explicitly genocidal ideologies like Nazism, or bigoted hate speech.