When you say "trans woman" you affirm that they are women, and trans is just an adjective. When you say "transwoman" it can imply that they are something different altogether, and TERFs have certainly used it as such. Like, I dunno, a carpark isn't a park? That's the first example that came to mind, anyway.

I have a feeling that the people that think "cis" is a slur just don't understand what it means, or are outright transphobic.

I recently had a guy admit he might be transphobic because he "prefers actual women", and later uttered the sentence "maybe women don't like to be called 'cis women'?" and like, dude, it's just an adjective that means the opposite of trans. But how dare we imply that trans women are women?!

In the end, treating cis / cisgender as a slur is yet another way to attack trans people.

This thinking is hateful and dangerous.

Are there trans women who have previously experimented with being a femboy? Definitely.
Are there femboys that for one reason or another are actually trans but in denial? I'm sure they exist.

Is every femboy an egg? Hell no. There's plenty that are happy with their gender identity. In fact, thanks to them being able to be in touch with their feminine side, they probably know pretty well if they feel like a man or a woman. Don't push femboys to transition, but be supportive if they want to explore the possibility.

Looks like they'll be harvesting your data if you follow anyone from Threads, maybe even injecting ads. Unsure what happens to the data of people that get followed by a Threads user. A large part of the fediverse is here precisely because they want to escape corporate meddling, data-hoarding, advertising and other anti-user malpractices. There's a number of people talking about this, here's a recent post that highlights some of the things from their TOS.

Zig hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'm just going to drop that here.

I personally have enjoyed the meta-programming, the ease of integrating with C libraries, and like that it's pretty straight-forward to compile.

But whether it's technically legal is exactly what does or doesn't make it CSAM. "Looking like" is going to be highly subjective, and I don't understand how the admins of the other instance are supposed to handle reports, other than to verify whether or not it actually is the case or not.

Are petite looking people not supposed to make explicit content while dressing up cute? Should a trans man not share explicit pictures of himself, because he might look like an underage boy? Do we stop at porn that gives the appearance of someone being young? What about incest or ageplay? Like, what if you or someone else was made sufficiently uncomfortable by some other kind of porn? How do you decide what is and isn't okay? How do you avoid bias? What would you be telling a model when they ask why you removed their content?

Apologies for going on with this when I'm sure you're already sick of dealing with this. I had just felt like some of the points I brought up (like in my original reply) were entirely overlooked. Putting effort into an (attempted) thought-out reply doesn't mean I get to receive a response I was hoping for, but I was at least hoping for something you hadn't already said elsewhere.

The reason I brought up emotion in my reply was because I've felt that the lemmynsfw admins have been able to explain their decision quite reasonably and seemed to be open to conversation, wheras Ada was set on one goal and upon finding disagreement, wasn't in the right mindset to continue a constructive conversation. Which, to be fair, due to the nature of the content, is understandable.

If the content that the Blahaj Lemmy admins are concerned about are limited to certain communities, and part of the issue is the concentration of content in said communities in the first place (at least, as I speculated in my original reply), then I don't quite understand why blocking these communities only isn't something that was considered, rather than defederating the entire instance. I do respect Blahaj Lemmy's decision not to want to host such content. Or is there some technical limitation that I'm not aware of?

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn't like the idea of a community that's dedicated to "adults that look or dress child-like". While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I'm in the camp of "let consenting adults do adult things", whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought of as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That's why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it's collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for "certain people" to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don't believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of "this is weird and should not exist", which might be what was meant with "body shaming".

I'm trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?

On Mastodon, when you follow another user on another instance, your instance will send a request to the other, to be notified of new posts made by that user, as well as posts they've boosted. When such a new post arrives, a copy will be created on your instance so it can be displayed without nagging the original instance again for the post's content and such.

Lemmy is similar of course, since it uses the same underlying protocol (ActivityPub). Think of communities as "special users". Whenever someone creates a post or reply, the community will boost it, so it ends up on every instance where a user has subscribed to that community.

This part I'm not entirely sure on but I believe it's how things work: The other way to send messages around other than subscription is obviously to send messages directly. In ActivityPub there's a field that specifies the recipients of a message. When such a message is created, it is pushed to the instances of the recipients. On Lemmy, the recipient is the community you're posting to. On Mastodon, the recipients are filled with all the users that you @-mention in the contents of the message. So for a Mastodon user to post to Lemmy, they have to mention the community, which is why you see some posts that contain the community's handle.

Because you can't follow / subscribe to users on Lemmy, the posts of Mastodon users that don't involve Lemmy never end up being "federated", meaning Lemmy instances don't get notified of these posts, so they don't end up being "copied". This is the same on Mastodon by the way. Unless your instance sends out a request to fetch posts from an unknown user, it doesn't know about their posts, since nobody so far has cared about them.

This makes sense because if you were to try and store all the content from the fediverse you would need a LOT of storage for little gain. Similarly it would be bad to never store the content and always fetch it, because that would generate a bunch of additional traffic, which especially small instances would suffer from.

To summarize: Lemmy doesn't display Mastodon posts because it doesn't have a mechanism to subscribe to those users.

Trans girls: Both? Both.
Cis girls: Free money.
Trans boys: Not sure if worth.
Egg (female): Wouldn't it be funny if I pressed this button and turned into a girl instead of getting the money which is totally the reason I pressed the button? That'd be a total bummer. Haha, right? ... unless?

I don't trust Meta/Facebook even a tiny bit. We on the fediverse shouldn't implicitly support Threads by interacting with it at all. It gives it legitimacy. It encourages users to get their data harvested. We need to stick together as fedizens and defend our values, one of which is to get away from all this corporate meddling.

The creator of Mastodon has written a blog post after, from what I know, having been in talks with Meta, who required signing an NDA. And what a coincidence, it was posted on the day Threads was launched! I'm worried about the extends of that NDA.

For example, one of the things conveniently left out of this blog post is Meta's ability to analyze every single post and user going through Threads, obviously including the ones posted on Mastodon. Sure, your IP won't be visible to them, but if someone looks at your post, profile or follows you in the Threads app, what you posted is going to them. I doubt they'll be able to resist the urge to harvest all the data they can, perhaps even illegally. Threads is not available in Europe yet. I wonder why...

For the sake of completeness, if you haven't come across it yet, some of the embrace-extend-extinguish (short EEE) worries have been outlined in this post: How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse)

What happens when Threads takes off and their users demand to be able to follow and be followed by fediverse users? Especially if we don't all stick together and defederate on day one. Are instance admins going to cave in? Are users going to switch to a Meta-friendly instances, or worse, Threads itself? What happens to the discourse, if algorithms once again start to encourage people to post in ways to please it?

Think of what happened, or is happening to, Reddit. Corporations, especially these monolithic ones like Meta/Facebook, don't care about their users. They don't care about open protocols. On a good day they care about giving the appearance that they do care about these things. But really, they care about their investors. About making profit and infinitely growing. We must resist this cancer on the fediverse.

Not hating on people who like and enjoy PvP games, but to me it feels like it's a good way for a developer to make a game that doesn't actually have that much substance. Lacking content? Nothing to actually do in the game? NPCs are difficult to make interesting to fight? Just have players shoot each other. It's basically content that creates itself, not to mention (if you have good matchmaking) the difficulty ramps up naturally without you having to write better enemy AI.

I just want to fight stuff alongside other people, rather than potentially making another person's day just a little worse because I shot them before they shot me, you know? Is that too much to ask?