PeggyLouBaldwin @ PeggyLouBaldwin @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

147

Joined

1 yr. ago

oh shit. super bad guy. glad i never installed a fucking client. fuck everything about this.

i don't trust it because it is very big on the design meaning to be "censorship resistant" and there are certain kinds of posts that people make that probably should be censored, and while i like that some tools exist to make pseudononymous, censorship-resistant communications possible (tor and i2p are good. freenet is fine imho), this one looks like a grift that has a neon sign saying "censorship resistant".... and i am sure that associating with those people will lead to encountering some of that material that probably should be censored.

peertube uses webtorrents to share bandwidth among users: if you're watching a video, you share the data to other users at the same time.

There’s a good reason Lemmy doesn’t have videos.

peertube exists. it's activitypub. lemmy is the reddit-like interface to activitypub. but the fediverse definitely has video. it even has live streaming through OwnCast (though i think peertube has livestreaming scheduled to be implemented as well)

edit: hey i just found a movie station!

https://movies.ctbperth.net.au/

no, they are just livestock

but write in candidates can win. McDonald's menu options are disanalogous to voting.

there will be more than two names on the ballot, and write ins are always allowed. this analogy doesn't hold up.

this is dehumanizing to slaves

only a no vote is a vote for nobody. don't spread misinformation.

a vote for any party is a vote against all other parties.

a vote for cornel west is a vote against trump.

claiming evidence exists is not the same as presenting that evidence.

I don't understand why people mischaracterize him. he's a good person. he's smart.

a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don't need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.

edit:

you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked

if someone tells me they're voting for jill stein, can i say it's because they either don't understand that she can't win or they don't care who the real winner is? is it bad faith to assume a motivation like that?

it said

Characterizing someone’s vote as either a lack of understanding or indifference to the outcome without knowing their personal reasons could be considered an assumption made in bad faith. It suggests a negative judgment about their decision-making process without evidence.

In discussions, especially political ones, it’s important to approach others’ choices with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about their motivations. It’s more constructive and in good faith to ask questions and listen to their reasons for voting a certain way. This fosters a respectful exchange and understanding, rather than attributing motives that may not be accurate or fair.

i think this is pretty hard to draw a direct comparison. first, a few mods/admins deciding to ban is not the same as hundreds of individuals voting. even if half of them are bots (no one games lemmy votes, though, do they?), that's still a far cry from someone stepping in and actually silencing a user.

second, while i think you're right about the nature of western societal control, i don't think there is any conspiracy to enact that on .world. maybe i'm naive though.

i'm open to the possibility that you're right, but my experience is that criticism of the cia or zionism is tolerated to a much greater degree on .world than criticism of china or soviet russia is tolerated on .ml.

can you point to specific instance-wide bannings for talking shit on us foreign policy or zionism?

have a nice day

Why are we engaging at all?

because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user's comments.

You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.

i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said "that's reality". you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.