Steve @ Steve @communick.news

Posts

2

Comments

1,350

Joined

2 yr. ago

All quislings are traitors.
Not all traitors are quislings.
The difference is, being in service to an occupying force.

I don't really disagree with any of that. And I don't see how it suggests anything I wrote was wrong.
Unless you're suggesting conscientious objector stuff, replace my idea of whistleblower stuff. To which I can say... Sure? I guess? I'm not a lawyer. I don't know enough about the details to know the difference.

Yah. I'm torn. On the one hand it's kind of stupid and pointless to change the names of things. On the other hand If your changing the name, Gulf of America is probably the best option. The real point of doing it is to give the media something marketable to talk about instead of the more boringly important things going on. Which for the second time tonight, gets me dangerously close to a long rant about the shitty media we have.

Quisling:
"someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force"

The current delete function states:
"Warning: this will permanently delete your account. The deletion may not always federate to other instances."

The first part, I'm almost certain isn't actually true.
The second part basically confirms what you're asking for.

Yah. That could be stated explicitly on signup.
But to sum up what I said in other comments here; Not being able to delete things, is like the Internet's version of gravity. Be glad it works, and don't waste effort fighting it.

In practical terms yes.
Technically, if someone thinks something their told to do is illegal, they can refuse to do it, and go to court over it. I don't know the details really. I'd guess it's something mostly along the lines of whistleblower stuff. Which almost never works out for the whistleblower. So yah. This order likely won't have any practical effect. But it can be twisted into great headline. I'm going to stop there, before I get into a big rant about how stupid and lazy most news media is, and why.

The headline is misleading. The order is specifically limited to executive branch employees.
Basically saying they aren't allowed to use their own judgement to determine legality of what they're asked to do. They have to follow the judgement of the president and the AG, and do what's ordered of them.

"Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "

Because not as many people know about the free stuff, since it doesn't have a marketing budget to tell everyone it exists. If fewer people know about it, it'll be discussed less.

You're still missing the fundamental reality of the situation.

Stuff online generally doesn't get deleted. And almost never because you want it to. I think the EU passed a law about the "right to be forgotten". But the reality is, that's like fighting gravity. The effort and resources it takes to truly break orbit are far beyond most people's, and even most government's means. Same with truly deleting anything online.

Please, call me Steve.

Reality holds no responsibility to conform to anyone's expectations. However, my decades in the reality of the internet have shaped my expectations. I never expect anything on the internet to be truly deleted. Accounts are locked, but they and everything associated with them still exists. If you contact support, and sufficiently prove you're you, they can reinstate your account. In the rare cases they can't, they make it abundantly clear, and explain why they can't, in the deletion process.

Unless Lemmy specifically states all changes are guaranteed to be federated, I'd assume by default none will. I'll reiterate, reality has no responsibility to conform to my expectations. Deletions may in fact be federated sometimes.

But that's immaterial, since I don't post anything with the expectation I'll ever be able to delete it. An expectation built upon reality, not the reverse. An expectation I'm trying to impress on you.

Don’t you think that’s shifting the goalpost a bit? OP isn’t talking about something being archived they’re talking about a piece of content on social media still directly linking to that username.

What goal post? There is no actual, technical, difference, between archive and active. As soon as a post is made, it's old, and part of the accessible archive of past posts and accounts.

A basic reality from the beginning of the internet, is that you once you make something publicly available, it's out there. You can't really ever take it back. It's just a fundamental principal of how the internet works. A lot of people seem to forget that.

The problem isn't in the system, but in your expectations.
You're starting with a wrong assumption that things publicly available on the internet can simply be deleted. That's not how any of this works.

Maybe that's our fault. Maybe we weren't clear enough back when you started using the internets. But It's true, deleting things online is very difficult. You shouldn't ever expect it to be simple or easy.

You clearly don't like texting, and only do it out of some sense of social obligation.
The kind of thing one might call Malicious Compliance.

Nothing more than we owe each other.
Celebrity is a status We impose on them.

Sure, if you're torrenting government censored media to distribute to others living under an oppressive regime.
Are you torrenting government censored media to distribute to others living under an oppressive regime?

Asunder?

Definition
"The term asunder is an adverb that means "into separate parts" or "apart from each other." It is often used to describe something that has been forcefully separated or torn apart"

One didn't allow down votes. Seemed like a good idea. I rarely down vote. But in practice, when I do it's for a reason. And I want the option.

Another went down for roughly a week. So that didn't work out.

Which is one reason I embraced Communick; a paid instance. Been here since.

That's a good point. May be true.

Not necessarily. That's just what I did.
The point is, they aren't making a permanent decision. They can switch or move at any time for any reason.

The idea that one must commit, is the problem. At first, I signed up for 3 or 4 servers. It needs to be pointed out that no commitment is necessary.