TheSpookiestUser @ TheSpookiestUser @lemmy.world

🎺🎺

---

Read more

Posts

24

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

Then why specify at all? Assumedly anything off-topic would be removed.

If it was on topic, yeah sure. It's on them for having a problem with someone's identity.

No, to brainstorm a point, seeing as the community has now been banned and thus I have no idea what specific content they allowed outside the rule snippets posted here. Problem's resolved, we're done.

When the "opinions" being aired discriminate against other people or could lead to an avoidable death from dangerous misinformation, it should not be allowed.

Deplatforming works. Yes, banned people will leave and try to congregate somewhere else - but it is better that they are removed, so that the impressionable and the vulnerable are not hurt by their bigotry or misinformation. Besides, how many people have you honestly seen have a core belief successfully challenged and changed on the internet?

🫡

Such is internet janitor duty. Doesn't help they're both janitors, tech support, and management, I imagine it's quite the handful.

Community's gone now, so it's a moot point, but:

Assume they allow casual images. Someone posts an image of a pride celebration out front of a church. It's removed. Is this not obviously bigoted?

I think what they mean is the mods of this community aren't expecting to have to moderate ideological discussions over bigotry, just to handle support requests. Which, well, I contributed to those discussions myself, but I get it.

Thank you for the quick response to this, y'all haven't let me down with a decision yet

Frankly? When the thing they think is bigotry, no it is not ok. This isn't a casual difference of opinion, it's discrimination - thinking that an immutable part of someone's identity is a fundamental sin.

We do not need to adhere to free speech absolutism, and we do not need to equally entertain all ideas and opinions. We are human beings, not abstract concepts that adhere to ideological purity - we can make exceptions.

Discrimination against Russians, Chinese, or Native Americans based on their demographic is also unacceptable. That it once was doesn't make it ok now.

Would it be unacceptable if it described another demographic, is what they're asking.

Those things often go hand in hand

I would think specifically not allowing "pro-LGBTQ+ content" is being pretty bigoted. Just because it is a religious belief does not mean it can't also be bigoted.

If this little "loophole" is enough to allow this kind of thing to stay on this instance, I would be worried. But I'll wait and see what the admins have to say about it. Resolved: https://lemmy.world/comment/1455537

We don't need to pull the marketplace of ideas thing when the "ideas" being defended are things like "I don't think LGBTQ+ people should exist / are sinners".

I even get why, images inherently get more eyes on them than articles through links, but the least we can do is include the source in the post body.

Didn't the android mod team here have multiple mods? If only one decided to move then why didn't the others keep the community open?

Source on the image? Seems to be a snippet of a longer article.

EDIT: looking up the text of the image gives me https://inshorts.com/m/en/news/kerala-man-loses-%E2%82%B940000-as-video-call-from-friend-turns-out-to-be-deepfake-1689663557129, which is just the snipped text, but points at

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/deepfake-scammers-trick-indian-man-into-transferring-money-police-investigating-multi-million-rupee-scam-101689622291654-amp.html

as the source. I get images get more engagement than links, but it's important to have the source handy.

Huh, it sure did. Neat!

Does this actually work to notify someone on Lemmy?