So, it seems like PieFed is becoming a real alternative to lemmy.
What are the differences between these two? From a tech perspective, and also morality/ethics, if you want. Any differences in vision for these services?
Say whatever is on your mind. I want to know.
On which one should we put our weight?
Edit: I will leave this post here, which is a post by one of the devs of Lemmy that enumerates some of the things Lemmy 1.0 has. Lemmy 1.0 seems to be already in alpha stage and is already testable. The feature selection does look fantastic. Here is the post I am referring to: https://lemmy.ml/post/40744781
Tbf, some of them may be doing it at the behest of some government, it just might not be yours.
But really this is a semantic issue when the real outcome is the same: suppression of dissent. You can pretend you just “didn’t mention” abuse of moderation all you want but this being lemmy, it would have been a good idea when it’s such a prevalent problem, so I’m inclined to believe that rather than simply neglecting to mention it, like many others here you possibly support or endorse it. You also employ the often used tactic of calling everyone who considers this “abuse of moderation” a form of censorship “right wing” which just so happens to be on page two of the tankie handbook, so I’m even further inclined to believe that you’re just aligned with them.
It’s very much not.
Is that more common? Or is abuse disguised as dissent more common?
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Like I said in my previous comment, seems like you’ve been moderated for reasons other than your viewpoint.
Believe what you like. I support communities keeping their members safe.
I’m not interested in your ridiculous ideological turf wars. All I’m interested in is people staying safe.
So many times in the small town I grew up in I heard the argument that says, “we have to have guns so that if there’s a fascist government we can rise up against it! The casualties that come from that are worth it if we can protect our people against the excesses of a tyrannical regime!” And then millions of people die from that right, and then an actual fascist government really does arise, and oops, the gun owners side with the tyrannical regime. I always knew it was nonsense, but seeing the actual results is pretty notable.
In the face of that, “we have to have completely unmoderated spaces so that if a fascist government tries A Censorship we can speak out against it!” sounds pretty familiar. “The casualties that come from that are worth it if we can protect our people against the excesses of a tyrannical regime!” I’ve heard that line before.
EDIT TO ADD:
To be fair, this is a reasonable point to make. I don’t think it’s enough to reconsider the value of moderation, but it is a fair point and worth keeping in mind.
By “abuse disguised as dissent” do you mean it’s abuse to refute tankie propaganda and the bans for doing it (the tankies suppressing it) are then justified? 'Cause…
Like I said in a previous comment, it seems you’re unfamiliar with the entirety of .ml, lemmygrad, and hexbear. Or you support their moderation tactics, and “anyone who dared speak against them must be a right wing troll who deserved it” which coincidentally is what they say any time they ban someone for not praising the CCP or the russians in Ukraine, coincidence? I think not, too many of them around here for that.
No.
No. That’s what I mean by misuse of moderation. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t still exist, it means that people shouldn’t be on those instances.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t exist, I’m saying your premise of “if you’ve been
censored(moderated if you insist on distinction idgaf) on lemmy you’re clearly right wing and probably deserved it” is verifiably false.And that you’re probably one of them, if you parrot the same lines they do, of course. If you’re not maybe reflect on why you parrot their lines, perhaps you’ve been duped into thinking anyone who criticizes moderation on lemmy is a right wing troll just because they use a word that is basically synonymous when abused except “state.”
Btw note definition 1b. Would you say a concentrated team of admins and moderators with an agenda silencing those who oppose it fits that definition? I would.
No. There is no threat of violence, and the moderated are still able to make their statements on other, equally-federated platforms.
Lol oh so you’re definitely unfamiliar with Hexbear then, threatening violence is one of their favorites.
Regardless, where in definition 1b is violence even mentioned? Actually, nowhere in any of those definitions mentions violence, closest you get is “repression,” which can be violent, but isn’t by definition, it can be done through other means like propaganda and censorship. Furthermore there’s no threat of violence on much censorship, be it corporate, self, or govenment censorship. Sometimes there is sure but often it’s something as simple as not wanting to lose your job (corporate) or be ostracized (self), or a simple fine (government). If the FCC catches you saying no-no words on the radio they don’t threaten your life, they threaten to fine you or suspend/remove your license, if you show Janet Jackson’s titty on television you and Janet don’t get tortured, CBS gets fined $550,000.
And those censored by nation-states are often still able to make their statements in other nation-states, but they’ve still been censored.
Now who’s being semantic? But, ok, I’ll give you a couple of notes.
“There’s not necessarily a threat of violence!” Of course there is. In the US, it’s called “police brutality.” In other countries, you get disappeared or have an “accident.” Hexbear can make those threats, and they should probably be defederated for them, but they don’t necessarily have the power to carry them out. A police state by definition does.
“If you’re censored in one country you can still say that stuff in another country!” Sure, if you aren’t thrown in prison. And if you’re legally allowed to leave the country. And if you’ve got the financial means to do so. And if the country you go to doesn’t have an extradition treaty. And all that assumes you even survive the initial censoring.
Anyway, you’re trying to draw an incredibly spurious connection that isn’t merited. “Not having a Nazi bar is bad, actually, because then you can’t have an anti-Nazi bar!”
Well you wanted to play the game don’t get mad when I start playing too.I mean “It’s not semantic.”So you’re telling me, that in the wake of Janet Jackson’s titty, CBS/Viacom received or was threatened with police brutality in the form of $550,000 (a small percentage of their yearly revenue)? You think that a large corporation being fined for showing a titty is “police brutality?” That kinda minimizes actual police brutality but go off I guess.
Or that same titty that cost Viacom $550,000 could legally be broadcast in France because they don’t have as draconian of tv titty laws like we do, and nobody was threatened with prison time or killed, they were fined. It’s not always violence, despite your refusal to accept that you’re wrong.
“Anyway, nuh uh,” I’m arguing that just because you’re
censoredmoderated on lemmy it isn’t “because you’re right wing” as you suggest, it’s more likely because you said something a tankie didn’t like. I’m also having fun with the semantics of moderated vs censored but you started that, and the semantics of repression vs violence because you opened it up to that continuation by misconstruing the two, but mainly I’m refuting the former assertion that “they deserved it just becauseof what they were wearingthey must be right wing if an all knowing admin got angwy at them.”