@eddeeMN that a person is a liar is no justification for setting up a straw man argument.

Still, the fact that key campaigns against this proposal, and that his voters reject the proposal, comes together to say that he would lose support and lose votes should he actually try to implement the thing that he says he doesn’t want to implement and that his people don’t want him to implement.

It gets into this really nutty conspiracy theory. Yeah, Trump’s a liar, but that doesn’t give much license to ignore everything else happening in his entire orbit to put words in his mouth and criticize him for the thing that he explicitly rejects.

Just because he’s a liar doesn’t mean you can ignore everything and make up an alternative story and run with it.

@politics @DemocracyMattersALot

@mozz Well right, people who want to win want to get rid of both of these flawed candidates.

I just like that the question came from an account with the name mom :)

~(also, I didn’t know either)~

@Timwi @Kalcifer @BlanK0 @mom

@Sprite I could imagine two schools of thought on that.

(and I’m not saying one is right or not)

The other side is I imagine a ban represents an intention to disconnect, including the connection that would be required to let the person know they’re banned.

That also avoids drama that a misbehaving user might stir up in response to the ban.

Technically, in this distributed system, banning is more about ignoring someone. Instances can’t trust each other, so by keeping banning on the receiver side instead of the sender side, the ban-er has more control over the banning.

Moderation in the Fediverse is about making sure MY users on MY instance get the experience they want, regardless of what any other instance does.

It all comes down to the distributed structure here.

@Sprite I don’t think this is really possible in a distributed system like Fediverse since there isn’t a centralized list of bans.

You’d have to go to every instance one by one asking if you’re on their ban list, and since that list of instances is huge and changing by the day it’s just not practical under the design of this system.

@Sprite I don’t know if it would be a HUGE leap forward, but it’s a case of might as well.

AFAIK, ActivityPub allows arbitrary fields to be added to the Profile object, so sites might as well add some sort of adult/nonadult tag (maybe not 18+ as ages of majority differ internationally).

It would be as useful as alcohol sites putting up splash screens checking users’ ages before they access the website: No, not trustworthy, but checks the box for legal compliance.

And yes, some users might want to have their interactions skewed toward older folks, again yes, not trustworthy, but it would help some.

@ikantolol

Perhaps that’s what you get without defederation :)

But I say that with my eternal emphasis that each user should be empowered to shape their own experience here, as much as practical, even if that includes an experience that some of us might view as cesspoolish.

@BenJammin @Double_A

@yggdar

Well just don’t discount the possibility that somebody is doing it just for the lolz.

When it comes to this sort of thing there doesn’t need to be any rational motivation or intention to sabotage.

@Burns

@renwillis

Yes! I often thought some of the lesser known songs on Some Nights had a distinctive Queen-for-a-new-generation vibe to them.

@alternativenation

@jpm

Think of Lemmy as being just a different Mastodon client that happens to display things to their users with a different skin.

You interact with content on a Lemmy instance the same way as you interact with content on a different Mastodon instance.

(Technically they’re both ActivityPub clients, for the more correct terminology)

There do seem to be some kinks to iron out between the clients, though. The ! thing might be one where they disagree on how to handle it.

@programming

@astroturds

Result: interesting, my reply from a Mastodon instance showed up, but on the web interface I don’t see my username.

Maybe a little rough edge to look into.
@ValueSubtracted

@astroturds

If you’re interested in a little more behind the scenes info on how this works, (and since I want to make a test post to see how it shows up in Lemmy):

Since there’s no central clearinghouse for content in the distributed Fediverse, each instance broadcasts its users’ new posts, but only to other instances that need to see that content, generally because they host at least one user interested in it.

So you’ll see times when your instance won’t have received any older content before its first user followed the remote account. After that, the remote instance knows to start sending content to your instance, to that user really, but then your instance knows about the content.

In other words, your instance begins its subscription to the remote account by having any user begin to follow it.

@ValueSubtracted