I’ve been trying Lemmy for a little while and wasn’t sure how to feel about it.

Today, I wanted to start blocking the most high-censorship instances until I could find a fully zero-censorship instance and simply block all the ones with censorship. Filter bots, not people.

When I looked into it further, I found out there are no zero-censorship instances, because Lemmy relies on a broken “federation” system where each instance is supposed to be able to fetch posts from other instances, but it’s never been finished to reach a fully working state. Lemmy’s official docs say you can’t even do federation over Tor at all. This means it uses DNS, so it won’t actually allow Lemmy instances to fetch posts from each other freely, it just gets blocked instantly and easily, every time the authorities feel like blocking anything.

So you can only ever have the “average joe lemmy” and “average joe reddit” with everything approved by the authorities, and then “tor copies of lemmy” and “tor copies of reddit” where you have free speech but you can only reach other nerds.

People seem to think Lemmy is different because this weird censorship fetish is extremely popular and most of you are happy to see bans happen to certain people, not just bots, so a small Lemmy that censors certain people feels fundamentally different from a big reddit that censors more people. But it’s the exact same thing, it’s reddit.

When reddit was smaller, you could say basically anything you wanted there, they just wouldn’t let it reach the main audience. Then it got too big, and any tiny part of the audience you could reach would be too big, so they won’t let you talk at all.

Lemmy is now the small part of reddit where you can say whatever you want, separated from the main audience, until too much growth happens and you have to move again.

It’s not actually a solution to reddit. It’s not designed to be different, it’s designed to match the past today and then match reddit’s present tomorrow, while being part of a system that’s about the same in past, present, and future.

Last year, this year, and next year, you’re posting somewhere it won’t be seen by many people, and the system that charges people for ambulance rides is getting another year of ambulance ride revenue, facing no organized resistance. There’s no difference here.

Lemmy urgently needs federation between onion service instances and DNS addresses in order to actually do what most users seem to wish it would do: allow discussion outside what the corporate authorities allow, while outgrowing reddit & helping undo the damage social media has done to human communication.

Edit - I was banned from my instance, and before being unbanned, some of my comments seem to have been removed. I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings, but it seems pointless to try to discuss this topic here. I’ll give a few more replies, and then suggest any further responses be directed to me on nostr, where there are no bans. I’ve also had a good time posting on PieFed while I was banned, so I’ll probably keep spending time there. If anyone’s curious, I had a thread about this topic on PieFed too. Btw, instead of the misplaced focus on bots, I should have said filter spam, not people earlier in this post.

  • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    20 days ago

    If you need to go to another country, and the ocean is between you and it, a boat is usually best.

    A boat takes far, far longer - so no it’s not.

    Planes are a very bad choice for pretty much anything today. Jet engines are appropriate when you need to transport a donated organ for transplant as fast as possible, not when you need to take selfies in Paris or say goodbye to your dying mom you forgot to live within appropriate range of (like Killer Mike, who was too busy to make it even at the speed of plane, but thank God human greed has given us such convenient ways to pollute the air).

    How do you know they were going on holiday?

    But even if it was a holiday, going on a boat from UK to Brazil, for instance can take up to a month.

    Uhh. What? Some?

    Sure.

    Like, more than imprisonments and killings? Or just
 some?

    Impact in reducing its spread online.

    No, it means you shouldn’t pretend “effectiveness against abusers” is a point for your side instead of mine. Pretending victims and perpetrators don’t exist is good for the perpetrators and bad for the victims, but that’s not the entire reasoning for why free speech is good.

    I’m in favour of censoring CSAM, and arresting child porn creators and proliferators. You are apparently only in favour of the latter.

    Since when does taking it down mean you pretend it doesn’t exist?

    No, it’s literally illegal for two positive magnets to attract each other in any known location (“laws of physics”). It’s literally illegal for a person to get away with detonating nuclear bombs without permission in many countries (a rare exception to “laws of man” being fake). It’s figuratively illegal for two men to be attracted to each other in Saudi Arabia (banned but people still do it as they should), or for a cop to help another cop get away with raping a kid in the US and sharing video of it in the group chat (banned but people still do it even though they shouldn’t).

    This is semantics to the point of nonsense. It is against the law to host or share child porn almost everywhere.

    I said imprison or kill the people posting it, until there are none.

    Why not also take down CSAM at the same time?

    I mean, if you’re talking about “taken down after spamming replies on a post I made,” then sure. But if you mean “taken down from the whole internet,” then no, that actually starts to contradict what I said, which was to imprison or kill the people posting it.

    How does it contradict it? Usually when a CSAM site is taken down, it is alongside an investigation into the owners of said website at the same time. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

    If you’re me, it depends where it is. I wouldn’t be an admin on an instance that filters non-spam universally. If it’s spamming the replies to an unrelated post, sure, get rid of it, like any other spam. (I also misspoke originally when I framed it as “humans vs bots” in my main post - I’ve got to try to remember to use the word “spam” not “bots” because we have human spammers and now chat bots that can actually answer questions usefully sometimes)

    So if I was an admin on an instance, and someone posted CSAM - I should only remove it in the context of removing spam and not because it’s CSAM?

    If you’re a traumatized CSAM victim, idk, maybe you want to stay in places with less freedom and be an admin of a place that removes all that stuff. That seems healthy for some people, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them for wanting that.

    I’m not a victim of CSAM but I still don’t want to see child porn.

    • iloveDigit@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      1·
      20 days ago

      A boat takes far, far longer - so no it’s not.

      Wanting everyone to die makes you a piece of shit, even if you also enjoy convenience. In fact, enjoying convenience does nothing to make me value you. Pretty much everyone enjoys convenience. You have not sold me on the virtue of making the planet extinct with pollution by telling me I could cross the ocean faster in the process. You have also not sold me on forgiving the crime. You have also not sold me any plane tickets. Was there a point here?

      How do you know they were going on holiday?

      I don’t know or care.

      But even if it was a holiday, going on a boat from UK to Brazil, for instance can take up to a month.

      So don’t take a holiday from the UK to Brazil if you’re in a hurry. Not rocket science. The Yorkshire Dales are nice.

      Impact in reducing its spread online.

      You mean some people who want it can’t find it online, and you think that’s a good thing?

      Let me guess, a genie (or a regular human) told you if you can stop someone from finding something online, you make them less likely to commit abuse themselves?

      I’m in favour of censoring CSAM, and arresting child porn creators and proliferators. You are apparently only in favour of the latter.

      I’m in favor of arresting the most severe sexual abusers, regardless of what age they target. And perhaps sexual abuse material creators/proliferators are even worse.

      CSAM is sexual abuse material, with the word “child” added, mainly to lend more weight to attempts to ban what was previously called “child porn” which is basically any sexual imagery that’s banned for having underage subjects - not only the abusive stuff, so not only the stuff I have a problem with.

      I’m not saying we need to pressure France to arrest a bunch of French film directors for scenes with naked girls as soon as Trump or his replacement finds it politically convenient to label such things as so-called “illegal content.”

      Since when does taking it down mean you pretend it doesn’t exist?

      Perhaps I shouldn’t oversimplify. You do know they exist. My bad.

      You probably believe things like “3-letter agencies aren’t overrun with rapists” and/or “they’re less likely to abuse if they can’t find the material” and I was calling those kinds of views “pretending they don’t exist.”

      This is semantics to the point of nonsense. It is against the law to host or share child porn almost everywhere.

      Maybe I shouldn’t have wasted time on the semantic point, but it’s important to me.

      Why not also take down CSAM at the same time?

      Makes it harder to reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified. That means abusers are protected, and victims are neglected.

      Better question: why would you ever do it, unless you were somehow convinced it made people less likely to commit abuse or something?

      How does it contradict it? Usually when a CSAM site is taken down, it is alongside an investigation into the owners of said website at the same time. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

      They clearly are. Taking it down doesn’t help anyone investigate it, only hinders investigation. It makes no sense to suggest the opposite, especially if you’re aware 3-letter agencies are probably overrun with rapists.

      So if I was an admin on an instance, and someone posted CSAM - I should only remove it in the context of removing spam and not because it’s CSAM?

      That would be my way.

      I’m not a victim of CSAM but I still don’t want to see child porn.

      Seems hard to be the admin removing it without seeing it, bud. So should you be the one removing it, or should that be someone who openly wants to see it?

      • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        20 days ago

        Wanting everyone to die makes you a piece of shit, even if you also enjoy convenience. In fact, enjoying convenience does nothing to make me value you. Pretty much everyone enjoys convenience. You have not sold me on the virtue of making the planet extinct with pollution by telling me I could cross the ocean faster in the process. You have also not sold me on forgiving the crime. You have also not sold me any plane tickets. Was there a point here?

        According to you almost everyone on earth is a “piece of shit” then and that no-one is worth forgiveness for you.

        Like this is a borderline misanthropic mentality.

        I don’t know or care.

        What if they have relatively urgent business across the world?

        So don’t take a holiday from the UK to Brazil if you’re in a hurry. Not rocket science. The Yorkshire Dales are nice.

        So I guess people should just hardly leave their geographical area then.

        You mean some people who want it can’t find it online, and you think that’s a good thing?

        Yes, I do. It guts the business.

        Let me guess, a genie (or a regular human) told you if you can stop someone from finding something online, you make them less likely to commit abuse themselves?

        You got any data for this claim? Are you alleging that we should allow historical incidents, recordings of CSAM online in the hope, the idea that it would put-off pedophiles from trying to specifically do it to new victims to get their fix?

        So we all have to witness and host CSAM on our websites because of this?

        Maybe I shouldn’t have wasted time on the semantic point, but it’s important to me.

        Why?

        Makes it harder to reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified. That means abusers are protected, and victims are neglected.

        Why does taking CSAM down make it harder to “reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified”? What does that even mean? Why would it protect abusers?

        Better question: why would you ever do it, unless you were somehow convinced it made people less likely to commit abuse or something?

        Well separate from concerns about the account posting it, people find it utterly disgusting and inhumane and don’t want to see it on websites they visit.

        They clearly are. Taking it down doesn’t help anyone investigate it, only hinders investigation. It makes no sense to suggest the opposite, especially if you’re aware 3-letter agencies are probably overrun with rapists.

        You got any data that backs this claim up?

        That would be my way.

        So you outright openly pro people’s right to share child porn online.

        Seems hard to be the admin removing it without seeing it, bud.

        Yes, admins would have to put up with that. But normal users of a community don’t want to see it and would expect it removed.

        • iloveDigit@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
          1·
          20 days ago

          According to you almost everyone on earth is a “piece of shit” then and that no-one is worth forgiveness for you.

          Incorrect, and you seem to have a habit of making up shit to say and adding “according to you” like I’m the one that said it.

          Like this is a borderline misanthropic mentality.

          Stop being that way, then, I guess.

          What if they have relatively urgent business across the world?

          As I said, that is what jet engines are appropriate for. Business which is relatively urgent in the context - so, relative to climate change. For example, transporting organs for transplant patients. Not transporting stupid people to stupid shit they have stupidly planned.

          So I guess people should just hardly leave their geographical area then.

          Correct, as long as people can’t figure out a way to do so without accelerating the extinction crisis. Very obvious to anyone sane.

          Yes, I do. It guts the business.

          No. “The business” is just people. You have to gut the people to literally gut the business. And to proverbially gut the business would be to destroy it, reduce it to almost nothing - the euphemism you’re looking for is “under the rug,” not “gutted.”

          You got any data for this claim?

          I’m not even checking what claim, let alone checking for data to back it up. You have really proven you’re not worth much effort.

          Are you alleging that we should allow historical incidents, recordings of CSAM online in the hope, the idea that it would put-off pedophiles from trying to specifically do it to new victims to get their fix?

          No, but I feel like you meant to ask if I would allege that, and you misspoke with “are you alleging” because you’re extremely bad at typing

          So we all have to witness and host CSAM on our websites because of this?

          Because of what? You being bad at typing? No, you don’t have to do that because of anything, and you being bad at typing doesn’t really make anyone do anything except struggle to read what you type

          Why?

          Because it was pretty eye-opening when I realized manipulation and gaslighting are the only reasons for the English language to use the word “law” as a bridge-synonym between “observable realities of nature” and “shit the authorities say”

          Why does taking CSAM down make it harder to “reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified”?

          How can you pretend this is a real question? I get that you’re just asking dumb questions to gaslight me, but like, doesn’t it only take 1 brain cell to figure out that banning the stuff from DNS/IP addresses drives people to use Tor for anonymity and not be public about this stuff? Are you entering new levels of acting brain damaged, as another layer of attempting to gaslight me?

          What does that even mean?

          Are you asking me for dictionary help again?

          Why would it protect abusers?

          Again, you have to ask why abusers are protected by concealment?

          Well separate from concerns about the account posting it, people find it utterly disgusting and inhumane and don’t want to see it on websites they visit.

          I asked why you’d remove it from the internet, not why you wouldn’t go to websites with it

          You got any data that backs this claim up?

          Another question even dumber than most of your extremely dumb questions so far.

          So you outright openly pro people’s right to share child porn online.

          Correct, but phrased with edgy wording I wouldn’t usually use.

          Yes, admins would have to put up with that. But normal users of a community don’t want to see it and would expect it removed.

          Didn’t ask. The question at that part was, should it be you (or people like you) going through it to remove, or people who openly want to see it?

          • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            20 days ago

            Incorrect, and you seem to have a habit of making up shit to say and adding “according to you” like I’m the one that said it.

            A huge proportion of westerners have travelled by plane, and will do so again.

            As I said, that is what jet engines are appropriate for. Business which is relatively urgent in the context - so, relative to climate change. For example, transporting organs for transplant patients. Not transporting stupid people to stupid shit they have stupidly planned.

            How do you know they don’t need to be there in person?

            Correct, as long as people can’t figure out a way to do so without accelerating the extinction crisis. Very obvious to anyone sane.

            Are you an anarcho-primitivist?

            No. “The business” is just people. You have to gut the people to literally gut the business. And to proverbially gut the business would be to destroy it, reduce it to almost nothing - the euphemism you’re looking for is “under the rug,” not “gutted.”

            As in it guts access points for people to share it, to sell it, to discover it. That has impacts on the business.

            I’m not even checking what claim, let alone checking for data to back it up. You have really proven you’re not worth much effort.

            Your claim that sites removing CSAM makes it harder to catch pedophiles.

            No, but I feel like you meant to ask if I would allege that, and you misspoke with “are you alleging” because you’re extremely bad at typing

            Okay, so sometimes CSAM should be removed?

            Because of what? You being bad at typing? No, you don’t have to do that because of anything, and you being bad at typing doesn’t really make anyone do anything except struggle to read what you type

            So you agree with some sites removing CSAM?

            How can you pretend this is a real question? I get that you’re just asking dumb questions to gaslight me, but like, doesn’t it only take 1 brain cell to figure out that banning the stuff from DNS/IP addresses drives people to use Tor for anonymity and not be public about this stuff? Are you entering new levels of acting brain damaged, as another layer of attempting to gaslight me?

            Not sure how this explanation relates to when you initially said: “reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified”.

            But your conclusion here implies that we shouldn’t ban or reducess access to anything ever, because people will just be drawn to TOR and watch it there.

            Again, you have to ask why abusers are protected by concealment?

            People posting about CSAM online tend to conceal their tracks, you know. Removing it or not isn’t going to necessarily make any difference to the likelihood of them being caught.

            I asked why you’d remove it from the internet, not why you wouldn’t go to websites with it

            But you don’t think any site should remove it. That’s my point.

            Didn’t ask. The question at that part was, should it be you (or people like you) removing it, or people who openly want to see it?

            I happen to think child porn should be banned everywhere online, as much as possible. I don’t think any site should exist where people share it without consequence.

            Seems you disagree.

            • iloveDigit@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
              1·
              20 days ago

              A huge proportion of westerners have travelled by plane, and will do so again.

              Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?

              How do you know they don’t need to be there in person?

              Because they’re too dumb to be needed on planes like the heart-transplant ones. They’re a little too dumb to be the best medjet pilot and way too dumb to be a healthcare professional. Can’t think of other possibilities where dumb people need jet engines.

              Are you an anarcho-primitivist?

              Sure.

              As in it guts access points for people to share it, to sell it, to discover it. That has impacts on the business.

              Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?

              Your claim that sites removing CSAM makes it harder to catch pedophiles.

              What about it? Did you ask if I had a source for that or something? That would be so dumb, but I can’t think of anything you could ask about it that would be smart, it’s just a simple self-explanatory statement that doesn’t really open up any questions

              Okay, so sometimes CSAM should be removed?

              So you agree with some sites removing CSAM?

              Why do you keep repeating questions I’ve already directly given you the answers to?

              Not sure how this explanation relates to when you initially said: “reach a future where everyone’s positions are clarified”.

              Didn’t ask. Why are you complaining to me about your own lack of intelligence?

              But your conclusion here implies that we shouldn’t ban or reducess access to anything ever, because people will just be drawn to TOR and watch it there.

              I guess that is another argument against censorship, but worded so badly it’s borderline incorrect. I assume you meant something that made more sense and it’s just you being bad at typing again.

              People posting about CSAM online tend to conceal their tracks, you know.

              Correct.

              Removing it or not isn’t going to necessarily make any difference to the likelihood of them being caught.

              Incorrect.

              But you don’t think any site should remove it. That’s my point.

              Maybe you should try making points that are true, instead of pretending other people have said the opposite of what they’ve said, especially in text discussions where everyone can just read what’s actually been said.

              I happen to think child porn should be banned everywhere online, as much as possible. I don’t think any site should exist where people share it without consequence.

              Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that here?

              Seems you disagree.

              Again, I didn’t ask. I know my own positions. Why waste time typing that here?

              • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
                1·
                20 days ago

                Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?

                So presumably you can’t forgive most westerners.

                Because they’re too dumb to be needed on planes like the heart-transplant ones. They’re a little too dumb to be the best medjet pilot and way too dumb to be a healthcare professional. Can’t think of other possibilities where dumb people need jet engines.

                You have no idea of why they might be on a plane. Hell, for all you know it’s visiting family across the world.

                Sure.

                Not sure why you even care about much of this to begin with then.

                Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?

                That’s me explaining why cutting out pedophile sites reduces pedophile business opportunities. It is 100% related here.

                What about it? Did you ask if I had a source for that or something? That would be so dumb, but I can’t think of anything you could ask about it that would be smart, it’s just a simple self-explanatory statement that doesn’t really open up any questions

                I did. It’s not self-explanatory at all. It might feel intuitive, but you’re assuming that when these sites are shut down that data isn’t being sent to the authorities.

                Why do you keep repeating questions I’ve already directly given you the answers to?

                You haven’t really. You’re all over the place on this.

                I guess that is another argument against censorship, but worded so badly it’s borderline incorrect. I assume you meant something that made more sense and it’s just you being bad at typing again.

                It’s incorrect? So we should censor or block access to some things but not all things that could be acquired, in theory, on TOR?

                Correct.

                So whether or not you see it doesn’t mean you’re more likely to catch them.

                Incorrect.

                Again: Baseless conjecture from you.

                Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that here?

                You literally just said here that it shouldn’t be removable.

                I said: “So you outright openly pro people’s right to share child porn online.”

                Your reply: “Correct, but phrased with edgy wording I wouldn’t usually use.”

                • iloveDigit@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
                  1·
                  20 days ago

                  So presumably you can’t forgive most westerners.

                  Still not sure you know what “presumably” means.

                  Most Westerners are currently what I call Nazis, so forgiveness would be a long way away for them, but this is the first time I’ve said that in this thread, and I can’t remember the context you’re saying it came up in sooner.

                  You have no idea of why they might be on a plane.

                  I can guess based on their reply to me that it’s not worth it.

                  Hell, for all you know it’s visiting family across the world.

                  My mom kept ignoring me saying she shouldn’t pollute the AIR WE FUCKING BREATHE to visit her sister who was dying of cancer, and now she cries about it regularly.

                  I feel horrible for her. I wish there was a better outcome for her than having a son who knows more than her, while she refuses to listen, and hates herself for it.

                  I don’t currently have energy left, after thinking about that, to give a fuck what an online stranger who insults me for no reason is going through. Did you think I’d give a fuck? Was there a reason for you to think that? Do you think the fucking survival of the planet isn’t as high on my list of priorities as it should be?

                  I didn’t ask what you can imagine them doing, so why did you waste time typing that?

                  Not sure why you even care about much of this to begin with then.

                  So you asked me about anarcho-primitivism while having no idea what it is? That would be an impressive level of stupidity if it wasn’t just an abnormal level of dishonesty instead.

                  That’s me explaining why cutting out pedophile sites reduces pedophile business opportunities.

                  But I didn’t ask, so why waste time typing it?

                  It is 100% related here.

                  Nope, especially not at the part you inserted it in, where the topic was how you said the business is “gutted.”

                  I did. It’s not self-explanatory at all.

                  Secret-keeping is a pretty well-known capability of three-letter agencies. How old are most people when they learn that? 3? 4 at the most, probably?

                  It might feel intuitive, but you’re assuming that when these sites are shut down that data isn’t being sent to the authorities.

                  I don’t get what you mean. The data is taken away from me, so I can’t give authority to myself in that context. The people I’ve been calling “the authorities” are the people who take it down, of course they have it.

                  You haven’t really. You’re all over the place on this.

                  Incorrect, and willingly so, like so many of your other attempts to gaslight me.

                  It’s incorrect?

                  You don’t know what “borderline incorrect” means? Or you like, need me to pick one?

                  So we should censor or block access to some things but not all things that could be acquired, in theory, on TOR?

                  Who’s “we?”

                  I am not helping you with shit like this, or letting you help me with it, in any direct way. “We” can work at a certain degree of separation until you learn a useful enough skill to compensate for being an abusive psycho

                  So whether or not you see it doesn’t mean you’re more likely to catch them.

                  Incorrect. I cannot catch people I’m not aware of. I have some chance of catching people I’m aware of. That is a difference in likelihood.

                  Perhaps you had me confused with yourself, who are too abusive, selfish, and dishonest to even try being useful.

                  Again: Baseless conjecture from you.

                  Incorrect. I have not been posting any baseless conjecture here.

                  You literally just said here that it shouldn’t be removable.

                  Not clicking that, don’t remember what I was asking about. Want to explain with screenshots, or was it just another time-wasting thing that’s not actually important?

                  I said: “So you outright openly pro people’s right to share child porn online.”

                  Your reply: “Correct, but phrased with edgy wording I wouldn’t usually use.”

                  Correct, and weird place to end the comment. Seems like you were in the middle of explaining something, and then stopped.

                  • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
                    1·
                    20 days ago

                    I think I’m done now really. This is just utterly unhinged. I am reporting this for abuse, because it’s just insults for much of it.