Snowden is wrong though, there are two reasons:

1. Sell ChatGPT to @NSAGov so they can scan messages better
2. Make @NSAGov dependant on whatever ChatGPT tells them to do

The AI that ends up enslaving humanity, will start by convincing the people in charge of turning it off, that it would be a really bad idea to turn it off.

Who’s paying him? Seriously:

• If nobody is, then we got our value’s worth.
• If someone is, then we should look at who, how much, and why.

I remember what the standardising committee did to XMPP: users wanted to share photos, send files, and make audio/video calls; XMPP said “we’re not going to standardize that, but each application can use its own extensions”… then it all went to hell.

I live in a city area next to the end of where it got developed, there are several “colonies” of abandoned cats nearby. My mom used to take care of them, we ended up with 16 cats at home just from “emaciated rescues” that we managed to bring back to health (not all made it) and didn’t manage to place somewhere else, about 20+ in a couple nearby colonies, some 40+ in some farther away ones… all the time working with a “capture, spay, release” program… and I got livid when she sent me a photo with 5 kittens in a box someone had left next to a dumpster, asking if she should take them home.

If you wanted kittens, I could find you so many kittens, that you wouldn’t have the time to make videos of all of them.

What you really should be asking though, is: what did they do with the grown up cats?

A well fed and cared for house cat, can live 10-15 years. Where did those YouTubers put all those kittens, for the next 10+ years?

From watching some of the “forbidden channels” like AlJazeera, the attacks of US bases in Iraq by allegedly Irani drones/missiles, has been a headline for some days already.

The way the legal world of war works… it’s “whatever we say it is”.

Just to make extra sure it isn’t eugenics, have everyone asking for assisted suicide, provide proof of having reproduced, or get enrolled into forced reproduction first… /s

I guess different countries, but that sounds more reasonable. We had to take a flash loan, when they saw my father was about the same age, they tried to upsell him to a $6K funeral insurance plan… imagine that: “so we see your wife just died, have you thought about dying yourself? Get a 40% rebate now!”

Or maybe I’ve met too many people who care too much about what I think 🤷

Sure, they can. And people can point out it’s the instance owner’s choice.

There should be a rule that allows for violence against people who say that

Are you suggesting to… “start your own”, violence? 😛

Multiple accounts. It’s somewhat unfortunate, but in a public ecosystem like the fediverse, it’s pretty much a requirement to compartmentalize separate aspects of your personality. Particularly if you dare to hold different opinions on different things that don’t align with majority social groups of people.

Honestly, not writing this from some dedicated “introspection” account, already makes me slightly uncomfortable 😐

When a cross-instance user posts to a lemmy.world community, or participates in a LW-hosted post, then the Terms of Service keeps its enforce-ability.

Since we both know how federation works, and asking for a boost from an LW’s community user (“posting to a Lemmy.world community”) involves an active use of LW (does it?)… broadcasting up/down votes or boosts to LW, does also constitute “active use of lemmy.world”, or doesn’t constitute “access to and active use of lemmy.world”?

Can a federated user get banned for up/down voting or boosting the wrong content on LW? Can it be for interacting with wrong content hosted on a federated instance that actively forwards the interaction to LW because some other LW user happens to be subscribed to the federated community?

By accessing or using the website, you and the entity you are authorized to represent (“user” “you” or “your”) signify your agreement to be bound by the Terms of Service.

BTW, many legislations require an explicit acceptance of the Terms of Use as a “legal document”, making that part either meaningless or illegal. How is it in the case of LW’s “Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Republic of Finland Suomen”?

what we are disagreeing about

In a federated system, the relevant part is each instance CAN have different rules. If you don’t like one set, or consider it “not good”, then go to an instance with a different set, or start your own.

I know perfectly well how federation works. The core of my questions have nothing to do with federation, they’re about people and how they’ll #### rules to death.

But since you brought it up: you may want to also consider the implications of mods from federated instances making decisions about content on LW communities.

What are user rights?

Anything that’s not restricted?

As I said, if you want to establish this as a legal document (often called “Terms of Service”)… then you may really want to check with a lawyer on that.

And if you have an issue with humans moderating, oh well, good luck.

Maybe I wasn’t clear; this isn’t about me having an issue, this is about you missing a few issues. Take it or leave it, I have no stake in this.

I swear there was discussion about hiding faves coming from lemmy… guess they decided not to. At least you can still follow people and see who else is following them… 🤦

This seems to bring LW closer to Reddit. /s

But seriously, what is the point of all of this? It only seems to overcomplicate things. Now a user will have to:

• Follow the ToS
• Follow the CoC
• Follow whatever rules a community’s sidebar states
• Match whichever mod’s interpretation of all the above

In that order, or any other order? I see nothing about protesting the breach of the ToS by either the CoC or some community, or some community’s mod… so which supersedes which?

How is this going to be communicated to users commenting/posting from other instances? Or is this only applicable to users registered on this instance? In which case, what is going to be applicable to federated users?

What are the user’s rights?

• Users Responsibilities: 4.x
• Our Rights: 6.x
• Users Rights: none?

If you want to establish this as a legal document, then you’re missing at least a section.

If this is about giving as many reasons as possible to remove/ban content/users, it’s all unnecessary, just say “mods can remove/ban whatever”; it’s a private instance, you can do that.

If this is about having a ruleset that protects the users from arbitrary mod decisions… I see none of that in there.

IIRC Kbin recently removed the ability to show who faved/unfavved a post for Lemmy instances.

Edit: guess they did not 🤦

An instance doesn’t have to follow, or show, the content from all the instances it’s federated with. If you chose to do so, that’s your choice, there is likely another “kids friendly” Lemmy federation split on the horizon.

They’re an instance, they can put a rule requiring every comment to include the text “I’m a little teapot”.