Idk what’s up with your apparent obsession with being banned, but if that’s a problem for you - maybe you should reconsider the way you interact with people on the internet.

No, you. If you’re using most online platforms without getting banned, you’re not trying hard enough to make the right choices. Or you’re very young or something.

It’s really not hard to avoid bans in most spaces.

Sure, a lot of people find it more convenient to go along with the crowd than to do the right thing. Ad populum fallacy is very popular. It seems like you’re trying to allude to some other bullshit though.

Just follow the rules.

No thanks. Have reasonable rules, or embarrass yourselves / possibly doom your planet by silencing everyone that stands up to abusive authority figures. You’ll actually pick one of the suggestions in my previous sentence, whereas your suggestions for me are based on an unrealistic view of me as someone spineless, or an unrealistic view of authority as something so inherently reasonable that anyone who makes a rule must deserve to have their rules followed.

My whole point is that removing abusive and hateful content isnt censorship, its responsible moderation.

Then your point is incorrect because this is a political discussion space. Open a dictionary and check what “censorship” is. It’s irresponsible moderation.

Any online community that allows hate speech is not a community I want anything to do with.

And if we’re lucky, your kind won’t make the planet extinct before being left behind by a more reasonable future majority of humans.

If you let Nazis in your bar, you have a Nazi bar.

I don’t have a bar or go to bars. I live in the US where it seems impossible to have a non-Nazi bar by my standards, and your standard here is even tighter, to where I don’t see how any bar anywhere on earth could avoid being Nazi by your standards. So a bar seems like a weird comparison for internet discussion, where the Nazi places are more like the ones that promote echo chambering to help Nazism rise up (which includes banning Nazi ideas from many political spaces)

I’m not going to report them, I’m just trying not to let them bait me into getting myself banned.

The problem is if I did give them the reply they deserved, I might be banned when I’m the one treating them fairly, and I doubt they’d face a longer ban for baiting me or anything.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, me trying to get them banned doesn’t help with the fact that online spaces form bullying cults that ban victims. Either neither of us should be banned, or the instigator should be banned without punishing the victim. If you really feel like punishing victims, it would at least look less culty and psychopathic if instigators were treated more harshly. But I’m not the one removing the option to just let everyone talk freely with no bans for non-spammers.

I don’t think an actual AI would be easy to program to spend its existence being “Dunning-Kruger as a service”

Seems like chat bots and image generators are not groundbreakingly artificially intelligent

Obviously a fake rule, since I don’t see any risk of the person I was replying to being banned.

Like most online discussion spaces these days, the “moderation” isn’t spam filtering, it’s censorship by bullies who conveniently pretend they’re only censoring bullies. At least that’s my guess based on vote scores on certain content

I still call it federated because it’s not P2P (plus other factors, like the “relays” don’t actually relay to each other afaik)

But it’s definitely less centralized than fediverse

Nostr’s tor compatibility kinda sucks currently, but it’s there for sure. I’d say it works better with Tor than Lemmy does

Seems like you’re trying to bait me into a response that could be used as an excuse to ban me. Try this bullshit on nostr if you can handle talking somewhere you can’t just ban people who stand up to your bullying.

If you copy and paste your reply to me on nostr, I’ll be happy to explain the basic English definitions you’re asking me for (instead of a dictionary) while insulting my intelligence, but I’ll also insult yours back in a more appropriate way.

Edit - you obviously won’t actually reply on nostr, because you’re an authoritarian bully, but if you did, I’d feel a bit proven wrong about you and not immediately say anything I’d get banned for. It’s only here, that I want to say anything I’d get banned here for. Kind of a catch 22 type thing

What does that have to do with the context where you’re replying? I was talking about censorship, not community building / spam filtering

I think a VPN with port forwarding helps make your library discoverable on soulseek, but I don’t know enough to answer beyond that

Sure is strange though. Imagine reading Tolkien and deciding to be the villains? What kind of mind is that?

If humans can avoid extinction and keep the internet online for a long enough time, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to eventually figure out censorship is bad

No u

Then you’re really saying the internet is dying faster than it can develop. I think that’s just psychologically defensive defeatism, tied to stuff like saying humans can’t survive climate change

Hard to get a positive seed ratio this way, but definitely seems like best bet for someone that can’t afford airvpn

Public WiFi exists and it’s also pretty easy to get free condoms.

Borrowed WiFi is definitely your best bet. Find a place with a fast public WiFi network you can reach from your car.

Inevitably, either nostr will take over the internet, or the internet will be gone faster than nostr can develop to that point

Makes sense. Sane Americans recognize these policies as sane

You’re making no sense. If you don’t reply again, so be it

Didn’t ask