JustSomePerson

I’m a white man. The kind of people who are represented by the downward arrows. My point is that the arrows are going that way because of attitudes like those in the comment above. We used to vote for the socialist parties when it was the working class against the capital. Now it’s white men who are declared the enemy by those parties, because of gender and skin, aspects which are impossible to change.

No, I’m not. Regardless, my point is that that list is making requirements on some men to be what they don’t want to be, to not be considered the enemy of the new left. Sure, some men would love to be allowed to wear pink, but some of us would hate to have to wear it. When you present the pink-wearing, baking, doll playing man as the one you welcome on your political “side”, you’re telling every man who doesn’t conform to that, that they’re not welcome. So they join the right, despite it being full of nazis. We don’t want to join the nazi side, but unlike you they don’t hate us for who we are.

Yeah, fuck men who want to wear blue and play with cars. Being a man isn’t allowed. Unless you accept feminization, you’re the enemy. No wonder men choose to vote for the bad guys, when the “good” side demand that they play a role as weak.

This thread proves the opposite.

Removed by mod

You’re right. I read the first graph too quickly.

If it had used “Left” it would. The established color of “Liberal” is yellow, and liberals are people who believe society should be run for profit.

Fuck them for calling the left liberal. Liberals are the people who sell schools, hospitals, and social services to the lowest bidding private enterprise. A solidly right wing ideology that puts profit over people.

I wish “social media drama” would be somewhere else than “technology”. There is nothing in this story related to technology, it’s about business, people, and politics.

deleted by creator

I for one, spent time blocking what I wanted to, to curate my feed, and it took time.

If that is your general approach, why are you suddenly so eager to hand over that responsibility to the instance owner? Why are you pushing for that instances should curate the feeds of all their users, rather than the users themselves?

If you were to study version control in a comp sci degree, you would study the way it’s implemented, not how to use it. The data models for how to store and access repositories of many files with many changes is interesting, and can have different aspects depending on if it is text content or binary. Is it optimal to store each file as an aggregate of its diffs, no matter how many. Should there be snapshot points, etc?

Those are the aspects of version control that belong in tertiary level computer science. Learning how to use “git add” and “git push” don’t.

No. I advocated for people that imbeciles call nazis to not be excluded from society. There is a significant difference, but if you live inside a bubble, like some fediverse serverse, you might be so brain washed that you think everybody who thinks a little bit different from you is a nazi. They’re not.

Grow up. It is not possible for you to hide from the real world. The suppression of opinion in the fediverse is real. You admit so yourself two comments above. You call them nazis and evil, which is childish and unproductive. Have you considered communicating with those with different opinions instead of attempting to ban them from participation in society?

trusted to act in good faith

You are not acting in good faith when you are arguing that your members should be blocked from communicating with anybody on Meta servers, because of guilt by association. What you don’t allow on your particular instances has great bearing, because it shows that you are no different from them, other than in which opinions you consider to be worthy of suppressing.

It doesn’t require university level study to understand. You took Comp Sci, not applied software development. If you can pass Comp Sci, you should be able to use a system like git without it having been part of a tertiary level curriculum.

I am not claiming that there’s no censorship in the fediverse. I’m claiming that there is censorship, meaning that the fact that Meta also uses censorship is no argument against them. You censor people you call nazis, they censor people who think three generations of occupation in Palestine is a bad thing. Both have problems. This piece of news about Meta censorship is not an argument against federation.

Because we are not censorship happy pieces of shit. We judge every statement for what it is, rather than applying guilt by association in three steps.

Most people who want to block Meta from the fediverse want to do it because they want to block people’s opinions and statements from reaching them. They want the fediverse to be a “safe space” (a term which thankfully has lost most of its momentum in the last few years) where no dissenting or nuanced opinion is welcome. Somehow you’re trying to turn Meta’s similar behavior into an argument against them, even though it’s an example of both organizations doing similar things (prohibiting unwanted opinions).

Everywhere else, red means stop and green means go. Here, the creator has chosen to reverse that to emphasize that they consider blocking to be good and allowing people to connect to be bad.

No attention is needed for the instances that are marked with red. They are federating.

What a fucking hateful choice of colours. Green for blocking and red for allowing communication. Really shows what kind of perspective the creator has.