Every point can be supported with an analogy bad enough

I think this is a very real observation, with not much that can be done.

The best non-USA people can do is to participate and share/produce content which is not US-centric (ideally in their native language too). Unfortunately many communities, even non political ones, often still default to a US-centric perspective and culture, which makes it hard for people to participate.

It’s hard to dance around it, more people are needed.

No sorry, you said name as in the person’s name, I did not understand “username”.

I am not sure I understood. You called some mod by name and they removed the comment? If that’s the case, I perfectly understand and agree with the decision tbh.

That said, this is a general argument, not referred to any particular mod. I think that many people get angry when their content is moderated and they might want to harass/argue/avenge against the mod who took that action.

You need to learn what abstraction is, my friend. I am not speculating. Quite the opposite. I am saying that you like to think the world works according to precise laws that you can use to predict the future. This is why you are arguing in multiple comments that “they would have…”, as if people are NPCs with 3 different behaviors and the outcomes are predetermined so it’s just a matter of choosing.

The reality is simple: you, me, nobody can know for sure what " would have happened" if history happened differently. This is a methodological issue, not a discussion on the merits of your speculation.

I don’t know if nuclear bombs caused less deaths than the millions of other potential courses of actions, and neither do you, neither does anybody else. I don’t know if Israel wiping off Gaza from the map potentially saved thousands of lives in future conflicts. You see the problem?

Now, before assuming that everyone else is an idiot and that you are the only smart one in the room, you might want to try a little harder to understand the point of your interlocutor, considering we are also discussing in what (I assume) is your native language but not mine. If you didn’t understand so far that my critique is in the method, not in the merits, of your claim, then I agree, there is nothing to talk about.

I just made an example of speculating on future occurrences to justify concrete actions that instead happened. In fact, the entire comment was about the general idea of considering history deterministic, not about the specific atomic bomb event…

And where is the count of deaths in the different timeline?

Look, my point is simple: human history is not deterministic and we simply can’t know what happens tomorrow like if we were predicting the laws of phisics. Maybe there were other 100 different course of actions leading to as many outcomes.

You can analyze what happened, but it’s foolish to say “this was better because the alternative would have led to”. You can only analyze and discuss what happened, otherwise anything can be justified with “it wouldn’t have been worse”.

“this genocide was good, because without it the oppressed population would have led to civil war and many more deaths”.

I complain about people who support Soviet-style dictatorships having full control over online platforms moderating exactly as one would expect

I will ask in good faith: given that those people started the whole project to have that space, but built it using federated technologies which allow others to run their places, what is exactly the basis for your complaint? As absurd as they might be, instances can decide their own moderation policies, whether you or I agree with them or not. Given the fundamentally distributed nature of this platform, there is no such thing as “having full control”, and instead we can choose instances based on our preferences, so we are free to not subject ourselves to those policies, they are free to do, and both a free to use the platform in the way we use. The code is open, there are plenty of other instances. What exactly is the complaint here?

It does, but it’s an online forum, not an essential service, and easy to replace. On the other hand, being there with your name or nickname exposes you to harassment from those pissed at you for your decision.

I would say it’s an acceptable evil given the circumstances.

As a side note: asking why after a mod action is almost universally pointless. Moderating is free work and a level of subjectivity is implied. I think not having the ability to argue is infuriating but understandable.

History is about what happened. “Otherwise it would” is speculation.

What does this have to do with showing mod log? Genuinely confused

I see absolutely no reason why you couldn’t be a Dev and an admin, in a decentralized platform. If this was a single-server platform, maybe. But here, how does the moderation policy of lemmy.ml affects anything but posts over there?

Also, beehaw has a very politicized banning policy, would you say that is unacceptable? I see it as perfectly fine and I would be fine as well if they were to contribute to Lemmy code (unless they try to build their policies into the code and therefore enforce them everywhere - which is something we know the Lemmy devs are not doing).

I am a security engineer by profession, so I do have at least a decent understanding of what I am talking about. Every server in this case has that potential. There is nothing preventing any admin from patching code and manipulating the network after TLS termination (I.e., changing payloads of POST requests etc.). That said, not even in a videogame you would be “locked up” by someone posting CP on your behalf like that. This is simply not a threat and if you think it is, then you should be worried about every website you visit.

Yes, but that fact is well known and at least this shows there was no particular intention to chastise the user - it was just a button press.

It is not obvious, most likely not necessary and in any case completely unproven. Why are you so busy making stuff up in this thread?

They banned from the instance. Apparently the fact that you get banned from hosted communities is just a new feature.

See https://lemmy.world/comment/10467647

It seems this is just a new feature in the upcoming relase (the communities ban).

Tbh, also harass a mod. People get quite worked out when being moderated, and being a mod is enough work without people chasing you to argue with you or straight up harass you, I suppose. At least, I can see plenty of good reasons to hide the moderator name.

They were openly discouraging people to sign up on .ml already a year ago (I remember a banner to register elsewhere). I don’t think “anything” in particular is working. The devs seem not to care less for having the biggest instance, or communities there etc. They had the instance long before most of Lemmy users joined, after all.

There are serious cyber security implications here that people are sleeping on

No, there are not.

At most, if they decide to kill the project by adding malicious code they can affect Lemmy itself. 99% of users don’t run Lemmy (which is where the “quiet exploits” would run), and the frontend simply doesn’t allow you to have a serious impact, unless you think they will stumble upon a browser 0-day and they decide to burn it by committing the exploit to an open source repo instead of selling it for millions (or use it elsewhere).

What’s with the fearmongering? Their stance is crystal clear since ever.

possibly even fork the Lemmy repos

Right, and who maintains the fork? Who, among the large population of external contributor, I mean?