swordgeek
@swordgeek@lemmy.ca
- Comment on Not to mom shame... 1 week ago:
Honestly, the first thing that came to mind when I saw the picture was that her son made her a crown, and she was proudly rockin’ it.
- Comment on In our post-AI era, is job security strictly mythical? Or How to believe in careers as a concept worth doing? 5 weeks ago:
I think I’d disagree with this.
For a while, there was a sense among the robber baron class that loyalty to employees would pay off with loyalty returned. Consider industrialists building towns for their employees and families, complete with schools and arenas.
Regardless of how cynical the reasoning may have been, the result was a degree of mutual loyalty and job security.
- Comment on In our post-AI era, is job security strictly mythical? Or How to believe in careers as a concept worth doing? 5 weeks ago:
‘Job security’ has been a myth for more than half a century. A career for mostnpeople is nothing more than a job that you’re enmeshed in, and can’t easily leave if you want to.
- Comment on [Serious] Why do so many people seem to hate veganism? 1 month ago:
For me, it’s this subset of vegans:
Me: want a burger? V: No thanks, I’m vegan. Me: Oh, cool. Well there’s egg and cheese in the salad dressing so you’ll want to avoid that too, but I have some black bean patties in the freezer if you want. V: Do you know how bad meat is for your body? Me: Yeah I actually do, but we all make our own decisions about self-harm, don’t we? V: Factory farms are cruel and sadistic! Me: Agreed. That’s why I buy from a local butcher. V: RAISING MEAT IS DESTROYING THE PLANET! Me: Corporations are destroying the planet. Now fuck off and let me enjoy my burger in peace.
- Comment on It’s the End of the Web as We Know It 2 months ago:
Again?
- Comment on is there a legal way to consume alcohol bought at a store, outside of a home, hotel room, etc.? 2 months ago:
Here in Calgary AB, public consumption of alcohol is allowed in some parks.
- Comment on Post was removed on this instance only - is there an appeal process? 5 months ago:
Appreciate the clarification - and it’s good to know that it’s likely a collective action, rather than individual.
But there’s a fundamental difference - two really - between the example you give, and my post. In your case, it was behaviour (channel flooding) that was the problem; in my case, it was the content of a post that the admins objected to, even though it didn’t violate any rules on the originating instance and community, nor on this instance - nor did it run afoul of the intent of the rules, as far as I can see.
It was strictly a case of the admins deciding “we don’t like that post” and removing it. They became content gatekeepers - honestly, de facto moderators on their own instance.
If the admins don’t like a community from an instance, they should be free to block the community or defederate with the instance entirely; but filtering content based on their view of what they think should be allowed in the community is…
Yeah, it’s just not right. It’s harmful to the community as a whole, and disproportionately harmful to communities on other instances.
- Comment on Post was removed on this instance only - is there an appeal process? 5 months ago:
On the one hand, CBSA and CSIS are both charged with keeping undesirable people out of the country - and someone who stands so strongly against the values that Canada has embraced in law and policy is an exact definition of undesirable to Canada, in my mind.
I didn’t call for brigading (essentially spamming), I called on people who felt the same to let the enforcement agencies know how they felt.
But far more importantly, an admin (not even a mod) on lemmy.world made a judgement call about my post and decided to remove it because of their opinion - NOT because it violated that instance’s rules or any laws that I’m aware of.
Because of an admin’s personal judgement, people on lemmy.world now have a different view of !alberta@lemmy.ca than the actual tone and content on the hosting instance. This puts the admin in the role of moral gatekeeper, which seems like an extremely bad precedent to set.
If all instances were equal, this would hurt lemmy.world far more than it would hurt any others including lemmy.ca; but all instances are NOT equal, and lemmy.world maintains the majority of all users worldwide.
The deeper I look into this, the more I think that this type of behaviour is profoundly harmful to the entire Lemmy community.
- Comment on Post was removed on this instance only - is there an appeal process? 5 months ago:
This has been an interesting bit of discussion, to say the least. Different instances with different local rules are going to lead to problems like this situation more and more, as lemmy grows in popularity. It’s inevitable, and we’re all going to have to sort it out as the platform matures.
However the more I think about it, the more concerned I am that removing individual posts (or even comments) on a federated instance has the potential to misrepresent communities, through the filter of each instance’s mod/admin biases.
Perhaps a pointer saying “this post was removed on lemmy,world for violating rule (x), and can be viewed on its original instance <link>” would be appropriate. Or alternatively, blocking entire communities with a comparable stub: “lemmy.world has chosen not to federate community@instance.”
Of course in my examples I’m picking on lemmy.world because that’s where this is happening, but the problem and possible solutions are true for all instances.
- Comment on Post was removed on this instance only - is there an appeal process? 5 months ago:
Thanks. Some of the folks on lemmy.ca helped me find the results as well. It’s good to see an alternative angle on it.
- Submitted 5 months ago to support@lemmy.world | 16 comments