Spacekaren.sucks
spacekaren.sucks
spacekaren.sucks
They're even stricter than Reddit, and that sets a point.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athlet...
If you want to discuss the topic of transgender athletes there's plenty of places on Reddit for you to do so.
The topic is not too dissimilar to discussing crypto here on HN, it's definitely possible to do so but the topic so frequently erupts into name calling it forces heavy handed moderation that pleases nobody.
They banned /r/ChapoTrapHouse but by your framing I know you'd consider this not valid.
Nevertheless, at exactly the same time as the_donald was banned, ChapoTrapHouse which was a left wing subreddit was banned for exactly the same reason.
> that makes the whole place a leftie fart smelling commune
Comments like this are why people don't take your arguments seriously. If you want to have an honest discussion about these topics, don't take it down to ad hominem attacks and cheap slurs.
If someone wants to setup a mammoth federation (because mammoths are less hairy than leftists or something - I dunno) they are free to do so. They can use the same software, they can set their own policies on if they want to federate with Anime/Trans/Communist/Nazi/Antifa servers however they want.
And AFAIK no Mastadon server have removed the ability to link to competitors.
But also, Truth Social violated Mastodon's license. Gab eventually shared their code, but their CTO took the chance to call me a slur on his public feed for asking.
https://www.thebulwark.com/truth-social-violated-mastodons-t...
But it is important to point out this is exactly how federation is supposed to work and people who support freedom of speech should support that.
It doesn't even make sense in this context, unless you are implying people shouldn't be free to read what they want (since federation is mostly about the reading).
And even if it wasn't, then yes I do believe that freedom of choice is more important than freedom of speech.
You see it in action too, how people substitute having arguments for simply calling people some label.
After a while you realize that most people online and offline tend to be very authoritarian and love witch hunting/piling on others. So any type of situation where they can other and freely attack someone they'll take it.
But yeah, don't like "karen" at all. Call them whatever they are, e.g.: "this woman went and was rude and entitled and did X". Also, demanding good service or a manager might be perfectly acceptable done in a polite manner. Consumer advocacy shouldn't be blanket attacked.
Nobody says "black Karen" they just say "Karen", right?
And "Male Karen" is a thing, but we should probably use the words we mean instead of making up new words to say the same thing.
But that wouldn't be "cool".
Both
>Karen is a pejorative term for a white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining
To me these two terms are basically identical: Take a behaviour (Entitlement, Obnoxiousness) and genderise/racialise it.
It's stupid and divisive, but what I find is that right wing people are happy to use Karen and get mad about Mansplain, but left wing people are happy to use Mansplain but get mad at Karen.
Why is this?
It's the hypocrisy which is the issue there.
Would you be OK if Twitter just said, “all legal speech can be up, even doxxing since that’s not illegal?”
He went completely against that and journalists that reported on it when he banned the account and the journalists.
Keep in mind that none of this was "doxxing". It's publicly available information what Elon's plane is and where it's flying. He just woke up on the wrong side of bed and decided to ban, perhaps to see how far he could push things and whether his "fans" would support him.
He then starts a Twitter poll to democratise the decision to unban the journalists. The result is to unban them now. He didn't like that result and did another poll, except with the news that he was doing it again, the poll was even more in favour of unbanning them now.
He's a hypocrite deciding what to do based on what some brown nosing fan tweets him or what he dreamt of that night.
99% of a dox is taking public information from obscure sources and making it easily accessible in one place. Doxxing can be sharing public information about someone without their permission. Being public doesn't make it not doxxing.
Argument is invalid.
This is absolutely not doxxing.
Pull the other one.
Pretty much every platform (including Twitter) considers that to be doxxing.
You don't get to make up your own definitions for words.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Uxwbo7bhebMnLrpn8
(For the bystanders: There is no other included letter or note, just this unsolicited package containing a bare, although apparently new and unused, surgical mask with no explaination and no known-to-me sender. The string was cut unwittingly while cutting open the envelope.)
This conversation: 12-18
Sent: 12-18
Origin: anonymous fulfillment service
https://branchwarehousing.com/
So you have uncovered some never-was-covered public data from my full-real-name-middle-initial-and-all handle, and proved that some people out there are willing to mis-use public data, and that you are one of them, and I am not.
Strange point to want to make.
I wonder if HN has any sort of official stance on that sort of action @dang ?
I keep seeing this.
Property tax information and license plate information are also "publicly available" in most areas.
That doesn't make posting someone's home address, or the make, model, and plate number of their car somehow "not doxxing".
He needs to show he's a trustworthy moderator who won't behave like this, and his behavior makes it pretty hard to believe he will be.
It's just more obvious for Musk since 1) he prioritized himself over doing a more general sweep including more than what affects him alone and 2) he has been obnoxiously vocal for multiple years now, painting a massive target and begging the public to troll him.
Which is true, but also, I don't care, and I'm happy with it, because we're better off and other speech flourishes.
However, a handful of Mastodon instances, mostly ones used by frequently harassed groups, banned dozens of other instances. This was one of their major selling points to their users: "Join here, and we'll provide a curated experience with fewer harassers."
No instance that I saw banned linking to Twitter, and I can't think of any instance that banned journalists from major mainstream papers.
But the thing about Mastodon is that if you really want to talk to Nazi wannabes, you can always set up your own instance. However, many people may choose not to talk with you, because many people dislike wannabe Nazis and their buddies and don't invite them to the cool parties. Almost every worthwhile social space has always had rules about who's not invited.
Elon Musk has every right to shout loudly about freedom of speech, and then ban journalists and links to competitors. And his critics have every right to mock him for this.
All the instances in the main fediverse have practically the same moderation rules and if you don't apply them to your instance they ban you and stop federating with you.
A private party is not listening when they don't want to; And to be clear, you say that this is an intolerable imposition on your free speech?
small private forums also had some draconian moderation (well, some of them did for sure), but the key point was that they were small, targeted and competitive with each other.
Too draconian, and people leave; too loose and people abuse.
The thing is, you kinda know what you're in for with small forums (or in this case mastadon instances), the servers themselves do more to say what they're targeting and what niche they have; they do not pretend to be an apolitical platform or to not have opinions.
That's the major difference, you can go to other Mastadon instances and find people you enjoy being around. With Twitter there are some hidden "rules" (which used to align with the US west coast ideals, and now seem to align more with the trumpy right-wing thing), with Mastadon it's more likely that you know what the rules are.
Mastodon instances are all private property. They are clubs that can be run according to the wishes of the owners.
> You can't prosecute us for things that are published as we are a platform for communication, we're not responsible for what's communicated!
> We can moderate and ban you for saying things we disagree with based on what we interpret our "rules" to be (in social media's case: whatever the West-Coast likes and Copyright violations)
With Mastodon (or phpbb forums of yore) the former is false, so it's at least internally consistent, and of course you have the choice to move away, it's not 1 moderation style for the whole planet across all cultures.
We have that, with public roads and parks.
"Here's the rules: don't litter, don't get naked, don't yell and follow people"
What I'm saying is that you can be one or the other, but not both.
Mastodon doesn't pretend to be anything other than private property.
Twitter pretends to be a public place, like a park or a giant square.
Establishing clear policies and guidelines is critical. Musk's mistake is making things up to suit his personal feelings as he goes along.
If you think racism can’t be applied to some people because they have magical immunity due to their skin color, you’re a racist.
This is one of the uppermost citations on the Wikipedia page for the term.
https://time.com/5857023/karen-meme-history-meaning/
"Marginal immunity" is also looking at it the wrong way. One should instead consider how a nonwhite person would be treated in the same situation. Let alone any incident involving the police in the US.
Then why is it sad that it's got nothing to do with her?
> I'd be genuinely happy if this were a transformative moment: where liberals who've spent years demanding online censorship now see its evils since it's directed at them and their friends. But of course it's not that: they're complaining because they think they should be exempt
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1603768031867445249?s=...
There's some people who want their righteous tribe to not be banned but ban everyone else they disagree with and can't conceive they might, one day, not have the power to do so (after all, every alternative to the narrative setters is bought or squashed early).
Those of us who really defend free speech. Don't want any of these tribes to be banned but we find it funny how they're suddenly talking about free speecha and pretending the point is "hypocrisy" when the biggest inconsistency is wanting to ban everyone and using the "private company can do whatever they want" argument and then pretending that it's some sort of unthinkable travesty when they're at the end of the ideology they push.
Hopefully this chaotic "battle" all leads to more descentralization and actual freedom of thought instead of some authoritarian group gaining power and trying to destroy, block, deplatform, intimidate, defund anyone who doesn't subscribe.
In most forums nowadays we get a very pro censorship mainstream view that is very sad for those of us who valued the internet for the power of citizens to have an independent voice.
Glenn goes to CNN, Fox News and anyone who will have him. But most media stops inviting you when they don't like what you're saying.
Please detail where his arguments are wrong and be specific instead of this tired ad Hominem.
Glenn has been consistent throughout all of this. Most people who criticize him like you do are the ones who have "changed their views based on political convenience"
Funny how hackernews is suppose to "not downvote" for dislikes and you shouldn't complain about downvotes but it's pretty much like Reddit. Don't go against the narrative. Just "shut up" and "vote blue no matter who".
Then you wonder why reality and the online world don't look alike.