Only pedophiles defend pedophiles.
And I fucking HATE pedophiles.

Woody Allen is still a pedophile, who raped one of his own young step-daughters and married another.

People who defend that shit are SICK.

  • 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world•*Permanently Deleted*English
    9·
    7 months ago

    Admin approval with some text that needs a little bit of thought to fill out is surprisingly effective and definitely slows down spammers a lot.

    I had to do that on dbzer0 and I think beehaw, they were both a fun exercise and took no time at all. Hell, I ended up submitting a wall of text about Sacco and Vanzetti on dbzer0 if I remember correctly, lol. But if nothing else they knew that it was 1) a human, and 2) I really believe what I was saying.

    If the point is to get regular users who are thoughtful participants in online communities, requiring an email address and the typing of a few coherent words on their own behalf is NOT a barrier to entry, or even a much of a bar. After all, these people are applying to join a forum in which they are presumably going to spend unlimited time typing statements of their own creation in the future. Instance owners are just requiring a bit of that up front, and it’s not a huge ask.

    It is, however, a very frustrating requirement for people who want to open multiple accounts for spamming and trolling purposes, and for that reason alone is a great filter for applicants.

  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world•Bringing the power of books to the fediverseEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Could you get into BookWyrm if it no longer required an account to view books?

    Oh yeah, absolutely. I used to like Goodreads and would linger on the site, but the reviews themselves started to get weird a couple few years ago and now I only go when I need a link. A Federated, open version of it (with effective but non-corporate moderation) would be great, because it would have the honest range of reviews Goodreads used to have, hopefully without corporate attempts at manipulating the content.

  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.world•Bringing the power of books to the fediverseEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    I have nothing against AA or Goodreads, and have never heard of BookWyrm before today, but the main thing I use Goodreads for is providing a link for a publication that has accurate info (full correct name, correct name of author, date of publishing, ISBN, etc) that does not involve an Amazon or other sales link.

    So BookWyrm could never replace Goodreads for me anyway, and then there’s this:

    Write reviews or post casual commentary as you go, and control who gets to see your posts with granular privacy settings.

    From https://joinbookwyrm.com/

    It’s like Facebook for book reviews. I couldn’t even see a book myself because it’s all locked down. And like Facebook if you have to create a private account to use it I’d never go there anyway without seeing it first, or specific interest in what it offers. (I’m one of those rare never-Facebook people you sometimes see in the wild, lol.) If I had been unable to browse Lemmy before joining, I’d never have joined.

    Facebook overcame its initial participation hump by being .edu only, very exclusive, and word of mouth. They have coasted on that word of mouth factor ever since, because now it’s baked into the media and daily online life. But they couldn’t do it from scratch again today. So unless you unlock BookWyrm in some way, or its exclusivity becomes a major draw in itself, I don’t know how it will overcome that initial participation hurdle.

    I upvoted your post and absolutely support your goal in theory, but as someone who never joined Facebook, you could never get me to join a Facebook for book reviews, sorry.