Well the radio silence on it sure seems like they're circling the wagons to protect an admin that clearly isn't emotionally mature enough to be in such a position.
I think the fact that you believe a just society is one where a belief, no matter how vile, makes it acceptable to be raped, murdered, tortured, etc. makes you an extremist. You haven't given a second thought about how this would work in practice because if you had just saying something like that would bother you.
Please don't misunderstand. Even the government (US, in my case) doesn't have unrestricted free speech, and that's a good thing. We agree here. I even would say that the line as it is currently set in America is "too broad" and that we need to tweak it down a bit. We fail to acknowledge that stochastic terrorism is a thing, in our speech laws, and it essentially makes it completely legal to do as long as you remain sufficiently coded/vague.
If you don't mind humoring me one more time, feel free to weigh in on my questions, again, but assuming the quotes were both made in context; that is to say, JFK quote for a scenario where peaceful revolution was being restricted, and four boxes (which, in my mind, comes a little too close to the line) in a scenario where people were losing their ability to weigh in on their government actions via speech, voting, and juries.
I can't seem to articulate, even to myself, why the JFK quote is generally (in my mind) considered non-violent, but the four boxes one (again, in my mind) is more threatening. I'm hoping random internet polling will lead to some insight. haha
To be very clear, I personally think that if you’re a fascist or a fascist sympathizer, then you should not be afforded any rights under the law.
This is a very, very troubling stance. Imagine, for a moment, that some unnamed, but generally orange-hued person was president and the law of the land was that fascists and fascist sympathizers were not afforded any rights under the law. Holy hell.
Do you really hold this view, or are you just being dramatic?
How does "that's not how this works" sound like whining? I can't tell if you're just not reading anything, or if you are desperately trying to have a different conversation with me than the one I'm having.
I might end up leaving-- more for the ban stuff than the blocking piracy stuff-- but that's wholly beside the point when it comes to whether copyright law works like people are suggesting. It doesn't. The LW admins aren't going to be unexpectedly served papers for a lawsuit. They're going to get a boilerplate email with information on a claim of copyright infringement and they're going to remove the content without question and that will be the end of it.
Like I said, "just leave if you don't like it" has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
Precisely nowhere-- I have seen that quote get people banned for advocating violence, and I think that's pretty crazy; I semi-randomly ask people who moderate this question. I promise there's no gotcha here.
Is this true? I understood the lemmy moderation capabilities that any post, even non-local ones, could be removed from an instance, and any user, even non-local ones, could be banned from a community or the entire instance.
My opinion is that a good indication that LLMs are groundbreaking is that it takes considerable research to understand why they give the output they give. And that research could be for just one prediction of one word.
Like I said, this isn't new ground being traversed. There is a pretty straightforward method for dealing with this that doesn't involve lawsuits unless the LW admins intentionally ignore the process.
People here are acting as if LW is some unique thing and that copyright law is an unknown entity. We know how this works. The person I responded to seems to think that LW is somehow unique, and I would like to understand their thought process.
I apologize; I don't know what you mean in relation to what I said. Do you mind elaborating?