ImplyingImplications @ ImplyingImplications @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

2,362

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's what we in the biz would refer to as a "grower", which is in contrast to a "shower".

The reason the mods are leaving is due to an issue where the instance admin would remove comments from this community for breaking the instance rule of Empathy which has the guideline of:

If your comment is designed to hurt someone, this isn’t the space for it.

How is "fuck off" anything but a comment designed to hurt someone?

How does this comment not violate instance rules?

I'm not entirely familiar with the controversy, but from your link it appears that the Lemmy.world admin team announced a moderation policy that didn't go over too well and now they're reconsidering.

When someone runs a Lemmy instance, they are the administrators of the instance and have full control over everything that happens on it. By default, users can create accounts and communities on the instance. The user that creates a community is the moderator of that community and can control what gets posted within it. There's an overlap of authority between the instance admin and the community mod, as they both have the ability to decide what content gets posted, and sometimes that creates issues.

The issue here seems to be that the Lemmy.world admin team doesn't want community mods "creating narratives" by removing posts they do not agree with. In their rescinded announcement, they give an example that if a user makes a post in a community about how the Earth is flat, the community mod shouldn't be allowed to remove it. Instead, the community must respond to the post with debate or downvotes. Mods who remove these posts, instead of allowing debate, would be in violation of the instance admin policy and would be stripped of their moderation powers by the admins. The moderator of !unpopularopinion@lemmy.world (and some other community mods) blocked new posts to their community as a protest to the admin decision (which is now on hold).

SLAMS!

What the accused has told the police will be usable by all sides equally in court.

And the side arguing against you will use your words to assist you?

German courts aren't special. All courts work the same. You are innocent until proven guilty. You do not need evidence of innocence. All evidence is to prove guilt. The prosecution is attempting to prove guilt. Police collect evidence to prove guilt because proving innocence is not required. Both sides can use evidence collected, yes, that's the same everywhere, but it's not collected to prove innocence. You are assumed innocent. No evidence required. If evidence is being collected it's specifically to be used against you to prove guilt.

It makes zero sense for police to collect evidence of your innocence, the state to charge you with a crime, and then argue you are innocent of that charge. You are assumed innocent. Arguments that you are innocent are not required. Evidence that you are innocent are not required. Statements that you make can't be used to prove you are innocent. You are innocent by default. Statements that you make can therefore only be used prove guilt.

This site says:

One of the most critical measures in the preliminary proceedings is questioning the alleged crime participants and witnesses to what happened. No statement should be made without legal counsel at this stage (especially when the police open up to the suspect to interrogate them as an “accused”). Investigators are trained to ask questions that could put the suspect in a bind and are increasingly success-oriented. This often results in hasty, ill-considered and incriminating statements, which can be used against the accused in the main proceedings.

Which sounds an awful lot like German police can and will use your words against you in court.

Every country on Earth? Is there someplace police accuse people of crimes and then argue why they're wrong?

There's a contract from 1648 that still pays interest today because the company that issued it still exists. Unless Ukraine or the UK cease to exist in 100 years this contract will absolutely be enforced.

Cops don't collect evidence to prove your innocence. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Never for you. You and your lawyer provide your own evidence. The cops won't be collecting it for you.

108 in a 30. Someone speeding that much has no time for a ticket.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental health disorder in which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person - typically their child.

In functional programming, everything is an expression (of frustration).

That's definitely a terrible take but there's no reason to downvote it. I don't think you're trolling. You just have a different opinion and that's fine.

This comment

The post was a news story about a sports arena calling a kid to the front and saying Santa got him a new PS5 but they didn't end up giving him one.

A top comment claimed this is legally considered theft. I replied saying it's shitty but it's not legally theft. Got 91 downvotes for that.

All my other downvoted comments come from posting in video game communities about how I don't think video games need to exist forever.

Who would buy cigarettes? Who would buy a Cybertruck? Who would buy meat? Just because you wouldn't choose it doesn't mean it's a choice that must be banned.

Would you rather buy a game that you know is going to die in a year, or the same game but that can be played for as long as you want?

I would rather I get to make that choice instead of it being imposed onto me. You can make your choice. I can make mine.

Companies dont tell you beforehand that they are going to shut games down. They usually dont even know they will, so I dont see how your example holds up here. Maybe you could explain.

But what if they did? Some places have already put laws requiring sellers to inform purchasers if they are selling a licence instead of ownership. If the terms were clear at the point of sale, and I agree to the terms, what's the issue? You're allowed to think it's a bad deal, but why does that mean I'm not allowed to accept it?

Its like if Samsung would remotely lock your TV making you unable to turn it on again because they stopped "supporting" it.

Right. If they explained that at point of sale they would be doing that, and I was alright with it, what's the problem? I understand you wouldn't accept that deal. That's fine. You wouldn't buy that TV. I don't see why I must be prevented from buying it too.

The government should update consumer law to prohibit publishers from disabling video games (and related game assets / features) they have already sold without recourse for customers to retain or repair them.

If a company says they're going to disable a video game a year after I purchase it and I won't be able to retain or repair it and I agree to those terms, can I still buy it?

It's not going to get the signatures because the average person does not care about this. I play a lot of games and even I don't care. If you don't like the game, don't buy it. Why does there need to be regulation to stop me from buying it too?