random9 @ random9 @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

52

Joined

1 yr. ago

I'm not posting here to argue politics, so I will abstain from replying to your political views.

This is about the removal of comments (not just mine, either - several other people's in one of the threads I linked) and banning of anyone who disagrees with specific views, when those comments do not otherwise contain rule-breaking violations, aka no personal attacks or insults.

Do you think such removal and banning is justified or helpful? If, for example, your comment here was removed and you were banned from participation, would it encourage you to change your mind? Would you reconsider your views? I am willing to bet it will not.

If you disagree with someone's opinion, feel free to downvote it, and block the user. You are not required to argue against every single person who you disagree with. However, by removal and banning, the mods have removed the possibility of anyone engaging in further actual discussion.

And if that is something you disagree with (meaning you think the mods are correct in removing such comments and banning the users) then you are fundamentally pro-censorship - censorship which is a huge step in helping spread propaganda.

I found this just now after searching for related topics. This is still going on, my comments were removed and I was banned from two different communities for daring to say both Hamas and Israeli are bad (when the comments I was replying to were only blaming Israeli)

Censorship is very much alive across lemmy, and certain communities definitely seem to allow only one viewpoint to exist.

I made a summary where you can see my comments which were deleted and for which I was banned, and judge for yourself: https://lemmy.world/post/12344087

80 steps too far down the capitalism ladder

This is the result of capitalism - corporations (aka the rich selfish assholes running them) will always attempt to do horrible things to earn more money, so long as they can get away with it, and only perhaps pay relatively small fines. The people who did this face no jailtime, face no real consequences - this is what unregulated capitalism brings. Corporations should not have rights or protect the people who run them - the people who run them need to face prison and personal consequences. (edited for spelling and missing word)

That leads us to John Gabrield’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

I don't have comments on the rest of your post, but I absolutely hate how that cartoon has been used by people to justify that they are otherwise "good" people who are simply assholes on the internet.

The rebuttal is this: This person, in real life, chose to go on the internet and be a "total fuckwad". It's not that adding anonymity changed something about them, they were the fuckwads to begin with, but with a much lower chance of having to be held accountable, they are free to express it.

In the US if you give a politician money in exchange for voting against a bill, it's illegal (it's called "quid-pro-quo" in lawyer terms)

But if you just donate money to the politician, his family, or his campaign, without requesting anything - and then he "coincidentally" happens to vote against the bill which you didn't want, it is perfectly legal.

Basically, many politicians are regularly doing something clearly unethical and corrupt in a technically "legal" way.

I only discovered it recently, and have been reading it when I'm bored and remember it. Also just discovered the Bill Watterson "cameo" - it is pretty amazing.

This guy specifically? He's a racist asshole, who has been surrounded by other racist assholes and gotten support from them, so he has never learned that his behavior is unacceptable in a society that values freedom.

I went to highschool for 1 year in the UK, where a uniform was mandatory for every student.

I can assure you, it does not promote discipline in any way. Kids fight, do stupid things, and skip classes regardless of how they're dressed.

Do you always treat your guests like potatoes?

Welp, I guess I'll be saying "rule" for the rest of my life now rule.

I do, not always in detail if they're too long - but this one isn't, and the sidebar here actually doesn't say anything about incorporating the word "Rule" in your post title.

The stickied Rules post DOES though, and I just saw that.

Oh - this isn't a bad community, that isn't what I meant by my last sentence - this is just a place for memes and jokes more than serious discussion, hence my expectation of a serious discussion was subverted. But programmer humor is still a great place.

Cave Johnson. We're done here.

A "grodge" sounds like some sort of distant cousin of the grue. Maybe they're some sort of gremlins, and these people are gremlin breeders who are selling them?

Fun fact, Linus has said that he has named both of the major pieces of software he has authored after himself - Linux and Git.

Git is a somewhat old British slang insult for someone stupid/childish.

So GitHub is then .. a hub of gits.

Is this copypasta yet?

I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE!! WHY IS THERE CODE? JUST MAKE A FUCKING EXE FILE AND GIVE IT TO ME.

who needs code, when all we need is exe files.

Yes, I normally speak english good, but your corect to, i make a typo then.

A lot of people associated with Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) have major objections to GitHub. Here's one summary: https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/

But the TLDR; version is roughly:

• Your source hosted on GitHub is being used to train AI, and you are possibly giving up rights to algorithms you may have written (IANAL, and AI training is a fuzzy topic at the moment)
• GitHub itself is proprietary, closed-source software, while they claim to be pro-FOSS. Aside from not being in the spirit of things, closed-source means you also don't know what happens with your code/data once up upload it.
• Microsoft has a history of being anti-FOSS, while some people will say it's been changing, I think many are still rightfully concerned what their future decisions regarding GitHub might be, especially if they are a near-monopoly.

Alternative do exist, and some like codeberg.org are specifically open sourced, and pro-open source, so many people are pushing to move hosting away from GitHub and onto other options.

I send you an actual news article, and all you can do is reply with a strawman cartoon, claiming it's democrats?

You want to cite actual democratic politicians calling for more war or do you just want to live in your fantasy world?

I thought this was going to be a FOSS discussion, comparing GitHub and it's current owner - Microsoft - to the ethics of other hosting services like codeberg.org or something.

Then I saw where this was posted.