

Capitalism isn’t a political system. It’s an economic system.
And I think it’s totally fair to point out how “a company making a product worse because they make more money off the worse product” is one of the flaws of a capitalist economy.


Capitalism isn’t a political system. It’s an economic system.
And I think it’s totally fair to point out how “a company making a product worse because they make more money off the worse product” is one of the flaws of a capitalist economy.


One thing you have to always remember about Donald Trump is: he’s incredibly insecure. His fragile little ego is desperate for approval. It’s why he constantly shitposts on a social media site he owns - so he can get that constant dopamine rush of upvotes and fawning comments and “megadittoes, Mr. President”. And it’s why he’s desperate for the approval of people he considers strong leaders - Putin and Xi and Milei and so on. And when somebody he respects flatters him, he becomes putty in their hands.
Mamdani won decisively in New York. Mamdani proved himself a strong leader. And then, after taking everything Trump could throw at him and coming out on top, Mamdani went to Trump and basically said “I talk a lot of shit about you, you talk a lot of shit about me, but we both know that’s how the game is played and not to take it personally. You do good work and I respect you. We both believe New York is the greatest city in the world so let’s work together to make it great again.”
And Mamdani certainly didn’t have to ask for a meeting with Trump. It probably hurt him with some of his base to talk to Trump at all. So you have this strong man, this leader, this winner, who decisively proved himself the leader of the Democratic Party in New York, with incredible momentum behind him - and he goes to Trump to kiss his ring and ask for his support.
And when a strong man gives Trump the manly validation he craves, he melts like a teenage girl at a David Bowie concert.
Because you also have to remember, Donald Trump has no actual political positions. He doesn’t care about anything except winning - and he loves winners. And whatever Mamdani is, he’s a winner.


But people already have a public place to appeal. This sub, the sub you linked, pretty much any other instance that has a meta discussion community. But posting here, or there, isn’t an actual appeal process - it’s just publicly complaining about administrators.
And that was the answer to OP’s question: that there’s no single fediverse-wide place to appeal a ban, you have to follow instance specific appeal procedures, if they exist, and/or contact the instance’s administrators directly.
Which is a good thing, because it helps keep the verse decentralized.
I think, if there was a single location where the fediverse started telling people “if you get banned, post here to appeal”, users would expect some sort of formal response to their post, and get upset when people tell them posting there doesn’t actually do anything. Which would be bad. And if that location could do anything to encourage administrators to reverse ban decisions, via peer pressure or otherwise, that would also be bad, because it would compromise the independence of instances. That is to say, a fediverse wide appeal community would be at best useless and at worst harmful to the fediverse.
So I think the only appropriate response to “I was banned, what can I do” is “that’s between you and the people who banned you”.


I think any sort of fediverse-wide appeal community, or process, would risk compromising the whole point of the fediverse, ie, decentralization. The fact that admins have the final say on their own instances is part of what keeps the largest instances from controlling smaller ones and keeps the fediverse free of centralized control.
I mean, can you imagine a coalition of the largest instances coming together and telling a small instance “the appeal community agreed this user was banned unfairly, unban them or we’ll all defederate you”? Because I can imagine that sequence of events, if an appeal community got any kind of formal backing from the big instances, and that would pretty much end decentralization.


Not just in the United States. The Lancet estimates just cancelling USAID will kill 14 million people between now and 2030. 14 million avoidable deaths because the world’s richest man thought feeding the poor was a waste.
RFK is on track to do a lot of damage, but he has some stiff competition.
I think that was also why Qanon got so much play in the right-wing media ecosystem - getting conservatives comfortable with authoritarian big government conservatism.
Trump is going to declare martial law and have liberals killed or sent to camps? Qanon influencers have been telling conservatives that was the plan since 2017. And about 25% of the United States either believed it or thought “yeah, it’s crazy, but wouldn’t it be cool if it was real?”
The fact that Kissinger outlived Bourdain proves there is no God.
Though I almost wish Kissinger had lived long enough to see Trump piss away the American power and influence Kissinger sold his soul for. Kissinger should have lay on his deathbed knowing his successors squandered every advantage he won for America, that he steeped his hands in blood and made himself the greatest war criminal in history for nothing.


There are more comments in this thread alone than this MAGA site will probably ever host. (Trolls and spammers motivated by this thread don’t count 😆 )
And honestly? The biggest takeaway from these comments is how many users don’t understand the difference between a protocol and a platform.


An attempt at censorship failed because the censors didn’t understand the system they were trying to censor. I think that’s both funny and satisfying.


* If you wanted to summarise this letter on a t-shirt, it would be “People > Protocols > Platforms”. *
Can I get this under Calvin pissing on a Disney logo?
Seriously, this is now my favorite summary of the fediverse.


But someday after that, we’ll reach a point when the phrase “social media is all fake robo-crap” will be as common of knowledge as “cigarettes cause cancer” or “slot machines are a poor investment”. Adults can still smoke and slot, sure. But nobody in the developed world can say they weren’t warned of the risks.
Prescient.


Bluesky is a small indie company. It can’t afford to fight the law or implement the extensive age verification the law requires. So it chose to pull the plug and leave.
FB, X, etc, have a lot more resources to implement the extensive, invasive age verification Mississippi requires and keep fighting it in court until the decision upholding it is final.
Wow, look at all those corporate buzzwords. The focus on big generic ideas and the lack of implementation discussion or specific examples. And those perfectly spaced em dashes. Chef’s kiss. Premium chum right there 😆
But AI generation aside, this article is counterintuitive in a bad way. Save a Fediverse instance by building a real life community of “handmade goods and creative projects” based around that instance? If users cared about your instance enough to have real in person events your instance wouldn’t need saving.
If anything, it should be the other way around. Real life communities can incorporate a Fediverse instance for online socializing and building community. And those instances will thrive as long as they fill a need for the community. But creating the instance first and building a community - which is several orders of magnitude harder to do - to support the instance? Sheesh.


There should be multiple independent steps of verifying if someone should get banned and in what way. And probably integrate a good test for joining the community so that it’s more likely for people to be rational from the start (that way you don’t even have to look at so many potential flags).
How much would you pay to join a community with that level of protection for user rights? Like the old subscription based forums, some of which are still floating around the internet?
Because “multiple independent steps of verifying” is, frankly, going to be a lot of frustrating, thankless, and redundant work for moderators. I mean, we know how to safeguard people’s rights through legalistic processes. Courts do it all the time. It’s called due process. And due process is frequently a slow, complicated, and expensive pain in the ass for everyone involved. And I think very few people would want to do that work for free.
(Conveniently, this would also serve as a good test for joining such a community - people are more likely to follow the rules and act like decent human beings if a subscription they paid for is riding on it, and it would price out AI and spambots in the process.)


Is Craigslist shit now? What happened to it?
Which is why groups that aren’t targeted should be out there being supportive IRL and making it safer for targeted groups. Strength in numbers.
I’m a big fan of IRL, personally.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator