I feel like you’re moving from moderation to sort of oppressive or authoritarian territory once you’re literally building a social credit system into your software. If you want that, sure use PieFed. I don’t want that, so I won’t.

No just the whole thing. It seems sort of extreme to do all this stuff in the code. This is not something the software should have inbuilt if you ask me.

I mean okay sure, you can disable these things. But the fact that they are enabled out of the box in the software as written is a huge red flag.

… Wow. I mean I already knew there was some questionable stuff with PieFed but this is honestly next level.

Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar block them.

Sorry, but you forgot a step:

Downvote and move on, if the name becomes familiar report them and then block them.

Moderators should help so not all users will need to block these bad actors.

Sounds a lot like nihilism, perhaps with some moral relativism mixed in. Not saying that’s bad or good, just trying to put words to what you describe.

So what do you believe now?

When you remember to do it, how often do you do it? How long do you hold each pose?

Perhaps that was exactly the intent, to ensure that only actual humans read the content?

If that’s the case, it has the opposite effect. Humans generally benefit from being able to select text and not just read from an image. It’s of course especially important for blind people.

Meanwhile computers can easily read images via OCR algorithms.

I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime

I’m sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn’t need to have anything to do with CSAM.

For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal.

To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). “Breaking the encryption of a file” essentially translates to “doing maths on a number” when you boil it down. That’s how you can end up with the concept of illegal numbers.

Alright alright, definitely in those contexts there is no problem, of course.

I mean, that’s still acknowledging that damage is being done, just less than actual graffiti. I’d rather not associate the fediverse with defacing public spaces with half-scraped off stickers.

Again, feel like a t-shirt or a cap is a much better option.

It might be because I am in Denmark which has quite a functioning and lawful system and where I see the most graffiti is in public transport, like on trains and train stations. The transport company spends a lot of money cleaning that graffiti, making public transport more expensive for everyone else (hence antisocial behavior).

So I can understand where you are coming from but my perspective is just different.

I definitely do not find graffiti cool. It’s illegal and antisocial behavior. The art can be cool of course (although it very rarely is in my experience), but the illegal act is not.

Isn’t this not much better than graffiti? I think advocating for the fediverse is great, but let’s not plaster unnecessary and potentially illegal posters/advertisements everywhere.

If you want to display an appreciation for the fediverse, perhaps there are T-shirts with the fediverse logo?

We’re actually seeing a rise in new user applications over at Feddit.dk. The hostile behavior of the US has gotten some Reddit users to seek alternatives to american platforms.

the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it.

Could you elaborate on why that is a bad thing? I’m sort of confused why you wouldn’t want everyone to be in on it. To be clear, I don’t think we really need to change the goal, I just think the wording is unfortunate.

But again, I think we honestly shouldn’t focus on this small disagreement of the words, as long as we agree on the idea itself. We may not agree on feminism or egalitarianism as words, but I think we both agree on the much more important ideas behind it.

It may also be that I’m coming at this discussion from a Danish perspective, which is very different from an American perspective (I’m assuming you’re american, sorry if that’s not correct). We usually use a word like “ligestilling” which translates as “equality” rather than use a term like feminism.

He had a point but he kinda fucked it up in the third panel.

Tbh I think the term is kind of unfortunate exactly because of this confusion and rebuttal. We would spend less time discussing this if it was actually called egalitarianism or whatever, I feel. People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal. I think the term is just kind of unnecessarily confusing and egalitarianism would be less ambiguous.

But I don’t really care that much, the ideas behind are obviously more important than the word we use - but words are also important.

Fediverse platforms are not in competition with each other. In fact, it’s more like symbiosis. There’s no problem with having 15 or even 100 fediverse platforms.

Why do you need a culture shift if anyone can just pick whatever platform they personally prefer? If you want a certain cultural approach, then feel free to use a fediverse platform with that approach, but there’s no need for anyone else to follow the same choice, unless they want to.

I think the author brings some interesting points, but ultimately I think it’s a faulty premise.

The fediverse is whatever the user wants it to be. That’s the whole point really. If you want a reliable communications platform with zero dropped messages, aka email 2.0, then you can definitely build that on the fediverse and people can join such a platform if that’s what they want.

If that’s not what you want… Well then don’t join such a platform. Join another one. You do you.

We don’t need anyone telling us how to communicate or consume content or whatever we want to do with the fediverse. The whole point of the fediverse is that everyone gets to decide for themselves, so there’s no need to be prescriptive about any one approach.