Indeed it is. All I really want is a place where I can intellectually engage with people in good faith, even when people disagree with me; finding it productive, fun and maybe learning a thing or two. Constantly being called a "bigot," "fascist," "asshole," "idiot," "moron," really leaves it wanting.

Excellent then! Please expose to us your opinion about the tiananmen events. We are listening. Don’t be shy.

You stupid? My comment history is right there.

Edit: Aw. Don't get butthurt, homie. Lol. Tool.

I agree.

Considering how far the left-wing went off the deep end, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

Social media overall has been a net negative for humanity, IMO.

I remember a while ago, I caught a video on YouTube of Joe Rogan and someone else discussing all the 'great' and 'wonderful' opportunities of social media and the Internet that 'haven't even begun' to be explored yet. It was all the usual highfalutin bullshit about modern technology. None of these technologies when they're first pitched, are ever sold as something that's going to negatively impact anyone. But in practice after they've been rolled out, all the high minded uses of these things, only ever end up being an afterthought and a footnote to their real uses. Mindless consumerism. Social isolation. Destruction of privacy. Degrading communities. That's the 'real' end product of this stuff.

That's why it's all the more worthwhile to just cut the cord already and jump ship. If you aren't allowed to state your personal endorsement of something or offer up alternative platforms for discussion, that's something 'else', masquerading as the removal of a spammer. Spamming is in the delivery of the content. Not in proposing something for other people to investigate. I don't have a problem leaning on the side of censorship on this. Especially if your style of post is similar to what you've displayed here on this thread. If not though, then your bad was probably justified.

If you really believe that you were banned for promoting Lemmy then you should mention this in your appeal but as others have mentioned it seems like the issue was spam.

And that's precisely why the issue is going to be 'spam', even when it isn't. Because if you can't get away with stating the real reason the ban went into effect, you're going to do it under the auspice of something that has a degree of plausible deniability. I'm far less willing to give Reddit the charitable benefit of the doubt on this, seeing the shear amount of ridiculous bans that have been given out to people. But who knows, it's entirely possible it could've been spam.

... and forward thinking.

Let me go ahead and stop you right there.

I remember getting a lot of push back not too long ago, when I tried telling a group of people that 'good news' is something you have to pay for, because it's difficult to do.

The MSM, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all that crap is simply the most overt propaganda, tailor made for a mass audience, and free, precisely because it isn't valuable. A subscription to something like The Economist, beats anything the average person wants to compare it to. Or those one-man progressive outlets on YouTube, who went to community college and left with a degree, run their gig out of a one bedroom studio, and think they've got the entire world figured out.

I'm not inherently against the idea of advertising. I get why it exists, and I'm all for it. What I resent and have no intention of complying with, are the attempts at identifying me and collecting my data, as a means to 'manipulate' me into buying things. And, it also can't ruin my experience on the site. If advertisements were minimal and invasive, didn't try installing all kinds of ad/bloat-ware on my machine, you'd never see me making any attempt to protect myself against it.

It reminds me when Jaron Lanier said in today's world, anytime two people come together on the Internet, that arrangement is financed by a third party, that believes he can manipulate the first two. I really miss the good old days when the Internet was still a dirt road you could meet fellow travelers on, and have fun exploring it.

For the average person, open source doesn't mean very much. I much prefer it as a bit of a techie, but that isn't where the debate lies as a matter of what's important to the common user. People individually have to decide what their point of tradeoffs are between convenience and privacy, and what their intended goals are. If you're trying to disappear, open source may matter a lot more. If you don't want every corporation knowing where you live, but the US Marshalls aren't after you, closed proprietary systems may very well be acceptable.