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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (74 children)

    They had cheaper advertisers. Once Reddit reached scale, it needed to take a more active stance.

    Why would size have anything to do with anything otherwise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 74 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (72 children)

    I don't see it as connected, nor do I see how size on Lemmy correlates to strength of moderation. As for ambulance rides and the predatory healthcare system, we need to abolish capitalism and move onto socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 72 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (70 children)

    I don't see what you're getting at, here. Are you implying that once Lemmy overtakes Reddit, it will be censored by the government if TOR isn't implemented? First, it's not known if Lemmy would overtake Reddit, secondly TOR isn't implemented yet, but it's also not a problem yet. All of this just means socialism is necessary, rather than trying to worry about a problem that just doesn't exist yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 70 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    Lemmy is not "censored by the authorities today." Secondly, Lemmy already does what it needs to do, present an alternative to Reddit that is FOSS for those who want it. The goal isn't to compete with Reddit, but largely to create a space where communists can't be censored, and for now Lemmy does its job well.

    Ambulance rides for free in the US Empire requires socialism, at this point. Rather than complain about Lemmy, join an org and try to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    Lemmy isn't censored by the authorities today. You gave an example of how they could be, but not how they are.

    Secondly, no, absolutely join an org. That's far more useful than what you're doing right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Are you referring to moderators and admins as "the authorities?" I already acknowledged that moderation exists, but the idea of the government censoring Lemmy is baseless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (29 children)

    Moderation exists, sure. I don't agree with creating unmoderated spaces, they almost always end up as far-right echo chambers where people that can't say slurs in other places end up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    I've been honest from the outset. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm lying. I merely responded to what you were saying, as is how these types of forums work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Can't tell what you said, because Lemmy.ml censors slurs. I think it would be pretty clear that people that want to say slurs are usually far-right. I never once lied.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    It isn't at all a lie. Us disagreeing doesn't make me a liar, nor does it mean I made a mistake. I've been honest and good-faith, and you've been malding this entire thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I didn't make a mistake, and I didn't lie. I disagree with you, that doesn't mean I'm gaslighting you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I wasn't wrong, there's nothing to admit. You can continue to insult my character and claim I'm trying to gaslight you, but thay isn't the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Just stumbled upon this subthread, you probably figured out by now, but that user may not be worth replying to at this point.

    Well done on keeping civil, that was impressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I'm being entirely honest and good-faith, bad-faith is calling me right-wing. I'm a communist. When I say slurs are common in the far-right, I mean exactly that, slurs are common in the far-right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    What on Earth do you mean by "making communism happen?" I do think misinformation and bigotry should be censored, this isn't at all incompatible with communism. I do org work, that's what communists do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No.

    I don't think we should "redefine slurs." Slurs are slurs.

    I don't want to redefine right-wing to mean people who use slurs. I stated that slur-usage is most common among the far-right.

    I've been honest this entire time, and you've been picking fights and dismissing anyone's input by saying that you didn't ask for it. This kind of behavior would be considered wrecker behavior, and would be corrected if you were actually in a competent org.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, your use of slurs isn't something I've redefined, nor did I try to redefine right-wing as "using slurs." I said use of slurs is most common among the far-right, not that that is definitional to being right-wing.

    You repeat yourself because you're wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (30 children)

    The "zero censorship" instances that you say can't exist would be blocked anyway by the bulk of the fediverse, rendering them completely mute.

    Your definition of "authorities" also seems to be literally anyone with moderating power or influence. This is not a concept on shared ground.

    Actual governing bodies are not preventing "free speech" instances from popping up. They would only intervene currently if those instances played host to child pornographic content, terrorism plots and maybe piracy proliferation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)

    If by “the bulk of the fediverse” you meant “all users except the first person who started the first one,” then you are wrong both about what “the bulk of” means (a majority, but not one as extreme as all but one of billions of people) and what would happen with a zero-censorship Lemmy network (the bulk of people would block it, but not your all-but-one version of “the bulk")

    No, I mean the people who use the Fediverse now. I suppose I mean the audience and admins of Lemmy, Piefed and Mbin.

    If by “the bulk of the fediverse” you meant “the bulk of the fediverse” then you must have meant something different from “completely mute” when you said “completely mute.” Maybe you meant “censored enough to please me, but still leave me feeling anxious enough to feel the need to exaggerate”

    See what I mean about you taking words literally?

    The dictionary is more than enough shared ground for me. My simple way of defining “authorities” would be “those who are given authority,” which I’m sure is not in conflict with the dictionary.

    I have not been "given authority". I am no more an "authority" on the fediverse than you. The instance owners and admins have actual authority, and it derives from their ability and willingness to run these servers. If I don't like how a server is run, I can take my interest elsewhere. That's it. I have no actual regulatory power.

    So you’re saying there’s a big network of instances with child porn, terrorism plots, and piracy, but the authorities haven’t decided yet to crack down?

    No, I am saying that those are the only scenarios in which they might intervene.

    Or you’re saying you’ve used Wonder Woman’s rope on every server admin to get the true answer why they don’t run Lemmy instances that allow child porn, terrorism plots, and piracy, and not a single one of them said “it would get blocked,” and when you asked “so you think it wouldn’t get blocked?” they were all like “maybe it wouldn’t, I have other reasons for not trying it”

    Well, I suspect its both. If I was an instance owners I both would want to block CSAM, and also would be legally obliged to. I assume you don't oppose the removal of CSAM and terrorist content?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (24 children)

    Then "authority" is a word of no value or utility by your logic. Indeed, its impossible to not have authority by your logic. Everyone has it.

    But the only authority actual of any instance on the Fediverse are the instance owners who fund the instance, maintain it, and can terminate the instance if they see fit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (22 children)

    Everyone has authority, and some of them used to have convenient authority over who could have a savings account, until Bitcoin was invented and made it a lot harder to exercise authority over that.

    But this is vague. Clearly a member of the FCC has more power than I do on topics like this, for instance. What I am concerned about is who with power might seek to censor or shut down lemmy or piefed instances.

    So, mainly the MAGA base’s figureheads, right now - they’re the ones “printing” the money (funding the instance), clicking the buttons on ICANN screens to keep an instance online (maintaining it), and can terminate the instance if they see fit.

    Has any specific instance been shut down or pressured by ICANN?

    Which seems like it should be recognized as a huge problem by the community, but it’s not, because it’s just “mainly,” and aside from those “main owners” you also have “leftist sub-owners” who right now are allowed by the MAGA base to have an inverse-censorship space (to “prove” the false MAGA point that “leftists are the ones into censorship"), and the censorship fetish is so widespread, plenty of supposed “leftists” seem happy with this “small-scale inverting the censorship,” instead of big-scale erasing it.

    You're inventing a legal relationship hierarchy and then imposing it on the "leftist sub-owners" (as you call them). Have you got any evidence of ICANN being compromised by MAGA zealots just waiting to shut down instances?

    And what do you mean by "censorship fetish" exactly? No instance owner here would be happy with some regulatory body intervening and shutting them down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (20 children)

    Every instance has been pressured by ICANN. Even if there are instances at onion address, ICANN forcibly preventing them from using more mainstream addresses should clearly count as “pressure.”

    When was lemmy.world or lemmy.zip or piefed.social pressured by ICANN? Pressured to do what?

    Is this a strawman or do you have some reason for asking me for evidence of some random thing that incidentally uses some of the same words I used?

    How is that a strawman? You specifically said that Fediverse only exists because MAGA allows it, implying that they could just press a few buttons if they wanted to completely wipe it all out. This seems nonsensical.

    Notice how many times in this thread I’ve had to copy and paste the “censorship fetish” part because people wasted my time trying to justify censorship, or pretending it isn’t happening, because they enjoy seeing it happen to the people it happens right now and somehow that makes it not count (italics for the “absolutely batshit insane nonsense they really must be fucking embarrassed they haven’t snapped out of” part)

    I don't see what's wrong with "justifying" basic rules on a community or instance against child porn, incitement of violence, threats, general personal abuse etc. I don't think that's a censorship fetish anymore than a place of work having basic decorum standards has a "censorship fetish" or is in a "censorship cultism" trance.

    Then every instance owner should be using Tor for hosting and federation

    It's a hypothetical risk that's never happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

    When they were created, they were pressured to censor non-spammers, such as people who share CSAM or other forms of “child porn.”

    Were they? How do you know that? I think it's more likely that the original lemmy.world admins want to censor that to begin with.

    It’s not. That’s how DNS and IP addresses work, they can be blocked by pressing a few buttons. I also implied MAGA could make it permanent by using their guns on non-MAGA staff at places like ICANN offices, which is also true, not nonsensical.

    And when has this happened? Is there any good reason to assume it is going to happen?

    I addressed this in my original post. This place (Lemmy/Earth) is overrun with people who are into stuff like this. You know that, and you’re willingly ignore it, since you quoted it with the words “censorship fetish.”

    Okay, so you'll have to get used to the fact that people, mostly, don't want zero censorship in their communities.

    Making me repeat myself also won’t move past and present events out of the past and present.

    Past events and present events that you can't even name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (17 children)

    Were they?

    You know the answer.

    How do you know that?

    Same way as you, difference is I'm not trying to lie or gaslight anyone.

    I think it’s more likely that the original lemmy.world admins want to censor that to begin with.

    More likely than what? I never said they don't.

    And when has this happened?

    I don't know, have you tried looking it up?

    Is there any good reason to assume it is going to happen?

    Yeah. hamas.ps has been down for almost 2 years, which is ongoing, and it's safe to assume it's due to the authorities.

    Okay, so you’ll have to get used to the fact that people, mostly, don’t want zero censorship in their communities.

    Can't "get used to" something one is already used to.

    Example of "get used to" being used correctly in a sentence:

    Perhaps in the future, you'll have to get used to more people wanting to be in uncensored communities.

    Past events and present events that you can’t even name.

    Incorrect. I have specified many times. Scroll up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

    You know the answer.

    I do: They weren't. They just didn't want to host CSAM.

    Same way as you, difference is I’m not trying to lie or gaslight anyone.

    No, I think that they came to that decision on their own.

    More likely than what? I never said they don’t.

    So no-one forced them then. So no pressure.

    I don’t know, have you tried looking it up?

    So you don't actually know, yet you claim it must have happened.

    Yeah. hamas.ps has been down for almost 2 years, which is ongoing, it’s safe to assume is due to the authorities.

    Never been there. I'm guessing it's a Hamas related site. I doubt it has anything necessarily to do with the US authorities or anything to do with Reddit or Lemmy concerns.

    Can’t “get used to” something one is already used to. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

    So what now? What's your next move? You know there's no interest in what you want.

    Incorrect. I have specified many times. Scroll up.

    You have finally named one example hamas.ps. You've provided no examples of any Lemmy community being shut down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    I do: They weren’t. They just didn’t want to host CSAM.

    Incorrect.

    No, I think that they came to that decision on their own.

    Didn't ask, and the "no" is misplaced since this doesn't refute what I said, which is still true.

    So no-one forced them then. So no pressure.

    Incorrect. Learn what "pressure" means.

    So you don’t actually know, yet you claim it must have happened.

    Incorrect. I'm not the one refusing to look things up.

    Never been there. I’m guessing it’s a Hamas related site. I doubt it has anything necessarily to do with the US authorities or anything to do with Reddit or Lemmy concerns.

    That sounds batshit insane. Let me guess, you think the US doesn't control "Israel?" Fucking delusional.

    So what now? What’s your next move?

    Perhaps replying to someone else. Perhaps replying to you again.

    You know there’s no interest in what you want.

    Yet another weak gaslighting attempt.

    You know there is interest in what I want.

    You have finally named one example hamas.ps. You’ve provided no examples of any Lemmy community being shut down.

    Didn't ask.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (14 children)

    Incorrect.

    Sorry, you think that they did want to host CSAM?

    Didn’t ask, and the “no” is misplaced since this doesn’t refute what I said, which is still true.

    You are making assumptions about the lemmy.world admins that are completely groundless.

    Incorrect. Learn what “pressure” means.

    What "pressure" was imposed on them?

    Incorrect. I’m not the one refusing to look things up.

    You made the claims. You back it up. The onus is on you to back your claims up in discussions.

    That sounds batshit insane. Let me guess, you think the US doesn’t control “Israel?” Fucking delusional.

    Are you of the opinion that the US shuts down all sites online no matter where they are from?

    "Yes, hamas.ps was the official website for Hamas until it was taken down sometime after September 2023. The site is no longer publicly accessible."

    Not sure what this has to do with the Fediverse.

    Perhaps replying to someone else. Perhaps replying to you again.

    So nothing that gets what you want then.

    You know there is interest in what I want.

    There's no significant interest in what you want. You are a tiny minority.

    Didn’t ask.

    I did. Do you have an example of a lemmy community shut down by a regulatory body?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Sorry

    For what?

    you think that they did want to host CSAM?

    Who? I'm not clicking through to your replies in separate tabs anymore, I only see what's in my notifications. This doesn't show me the context of what you're asking here.

    You are making assumptions about the lemmy.world admins that are completely groundless.

    Can you screenshot a place I've done that and circle the part where I did? No, because you're the one saying shit that's completely groundless.

    What “pressure” was imposed on them?

    I remember this question being answered where you're asking it. Scroll up.

    You made the claims. You back it up.

    Why should I? What do you see when you Google it? You keep ignoring these questions, and repeating your suggestion.

    The onus is on you to back your claims up in discussions.

    That's why I do. And when the onus isn't on me, sometimes I don't. Do you have a point? Is this somehow one of those claims where the onus is on me? If so, what claim (I forgot) and how is the onus on me? And bonus question, do you have any idea why I might have mistakenly not noticed the "onus" in this case?

    Are you of the opinion that the US shuts down all sites online no matter where they are from?

    Not sure what you're trying to ask. We are currently having this discussion on a website. I've been replying from sh.itjust.works for hours without it being taken down, and I"m pretty sure you've been using that same instance the whole time too. The very conversation we're having makes it pretty clear I could not uphold the opinion that no websites are allowed to be online.

    “Yes, hamas.ps was the official website for Hamas until it was taken down sometime after September 2023. The site is no longer publicly accessible.”

    Not sure what you're quoting, but sounds true.

    Not sure what this has to do with the Fediverse.

    Why did you bring it up then?

    So nothing that gets what you want then.

    What do you mean?

    There’s no significant interest in what you want. You are a tiny minority.

    You know there is significant interest in what I want. You know we are a significant minority.

    I did.

    I didn't ask if you asked what I didn't ask.

    Do you have an example of a lemmy community shut down by a regulatory body?

    Same answer as the other times you asked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    Who? I’m not clicking through to your replies in separate tabs anymore, I only see what’s in my notifications. This doesn’t show me the context of what you’re asking here.

    Lemmy.world. You seemed to suggest they were somehow pressured into implementing rules against CSAM material.

    Your memory is shocking.

    I remember this question being answered where you’re asking it. Scroll up.

    You did not answer.

    Why should I? What do you see when you Google it? You keep ignoring these questions, and repeating your suggestion.

    Burden of proof. Onus is on you.

    I'm not going to stop. Non-negotiable.

    That’s why I do. And when the onus isn’t on me, sometimes I don’t. Do you have a point? Is this somehow one of those claims where the onus is on me? If so, what claim (I forgot) and how is the onus on me? And bonus question, do you have any idea why I might have mistakenly not noticed the “onus” in this case?

    You have never backed up a single claim with a single source. You make claims, you back them up. That's how it works.

    Not sure what you’re trying to ask. We are currently having this discussion on a website. I’ve been replying from sh.itjust.works for hours without it being taken down, and I"m pretty sure you’ve been using that same instance the whole time too. The very conversation we’re having makes it pretty clear I could not uphold the opinion that no websites are allowed to be online.

    I meant are you of the position that the USA exercises its long arm to shut down websites all across the world.

    Not sure what you’re quoting, but sounds true.

    AI results.

    Why did you bring it up then?

    I didn't. You did. You bought Hamas.ps. being taken offline.

    What do you mean?

    That your efforts here are completely useless.

    You know there is significant interest in what I want. You know we are a significant minority.

    Both of these things can't be true. If there's enough interest, then go and make your own fork and edit of Lemmy to work in TOR.

    Same answer as the other times you asked.

    Which is to say, no - you don't. And you're making things up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Lemmy.world. You seemed to suggest they were somehow pressured into implementing rules against CSAM material.

    OK, and?

    Your memory is shocking.

    Didn't ask. Also, read Small Gods (or honestly any book please)

    You did not answer.

    Not again, no, because I remembered it being answered where you asked it.

    Burden of proof. Onus is on you.

    I asked if there was a way that's true in this case. Is there?

    I’m not going to stop.

    I think you'll stop replying before me, even if you have to ban me and pretend that's me stopping replying.

    Non-negotiable.

    What do you mean? You have some way of forcing me to do what you want?

    You have never backed up a single claim with a single source.

    Incorrect.

    You make claims, you back them up.

    Correct, generally.

    That’s how it works.

    Clearly not for everyone. You're obviously not working this way right now. But I do, yes.

    I meant are you of the position that the USA exercises its long arm to shut down websites all across the world.

    I think you should rephrase that to "are you dumb enough to think the USA doesn't exercise its long arm to shut down websites all across the world?"

    AI results.

    OK, still sounds true, but kinda embarrassing to be quoting here out of nowhere.

    I didn’t. You did.

    Incorrect. Scroll up.

    You bought Hamas.ps. being taken offline.

    Didn't ask. I asked why you brought up the topic we were discussing, in which Hamas.ps had been one of the subtopics.

    That your efforts here are completely useless.

    Incorrect then.

    Both of these things can’t be true.

    Incorrect. I've only been saying true things, so without reading the part you were responding to here, I can assume it was two things I said which were both true.

    If there’s enough interest, then go and make your own fork and edit of Lemmy to work in TOR.

    Why would I do that?

    Which is to say, no - you don’t.

    This is you admitting you've asked and been answered multiple times, and still continued dishonestly repeating yourself.

    Are you starting to break out of the dishonesty, or just getting sloppy?

    And you’re making things up.

    Incorrect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    OK, and?

    Any evidence for your claim that lemmy.world mods were pressured into this?

    I asked if there was a way that’s true in this case. Is there?

    If what is true?

    What do you mean? You have some way of forcing me to do what you want?

    No, just I'm not going to change my position.

    I think you should rephrase that to “are you dumb enough to think the USA doesn’t exercise its long arm to shut down websites all across the world?”

    Can you show me some examples of the USA doing this?

    Didn’t ask. I asked why you brought up the topic we were discussing, in which Hamas.ps had been one of the subtopics.

    Hamas.ps was first mentioned by you, not me.

    Why would I do that?

    How else is it going to get done? How else do you plan to get Lemmy on TOR?

    I doubt very much you even know what you're asking me in most of these posts, to be frank. Your memory of my prior replies is terrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Any evidence for your claim that lemmy.world mods were pressured into this?

    Yeah, but why did you put this right after a quote of yet another place where you ignored what I said in yet another one of my replies?

    If what is true?

    I don't know, I'm not scrolling up to check.

    No, just I’m not going to change my position.

    That doesn't make "non-negotiable" an applicable term to inject when begging someone to do something for you, lmao

    Can you show me some examples of the USA doing this?

    Too tired of your shit to read the part where you quoted what you're asking for examples of, let alone hold your hand through Google searches.

    Hamas.ps was first mentioned by you, not me.

    Didn't ask. I asked why you brought up the topic we were discussing, in which Hamas.ps had been one of the subtopics.

    Why did you just make me repeat that? Just to abusively waste my time and energy, right?

    How else is it going to get done?

    I don't know, is it? Why are you asking like I would know?

    How else do you plan to get Lemmy on TOR?

    I don't, why are you asking like I do? Just to abusively waste my time and energy, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yeah, but why did you put this right after a quote of yet another place where you ignored what I said in yet another one of my replies?

    I don't care. Where's your evidence?

    I don’t know, I’m not scrolling up to check.

    My point exactly. You barely know what you're replying to.

    Too tired of your shit to read the part where you quoted what you’re asking for examples of, let alone hold your hand through Google searches.

    So, no, you can't. You make claims and everyone has to disprove them.

    Didn’t ask. I asked why you brought up the topic we were discussing, in which Hamas.ps had been one of the subtopics.

    No, you referenced them suddenly as a site that was shut down.

    I don’t, why are you asking like I do? Just to abusively waste my time and energy, right?

    "Abusive"? Am I keeping you here?

    If you don't plan to get lemmy on TOR, then what's the point of any of this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (7 children)

    I don’t care. Where’s your evidence?

    If you don't care about my question, why are you asking one?

    My point exactly.

    Nope. You don't have one.

    You barely know what you’re replying to.

    Incorrect.

    So, no, you can’t. You make claims and everyone has to disprove them.

    Not sure what you're saying, but doesn't sound like it makes sense.

    No, you referenced them suddenly as a site that was shut down.

    Incorrect. You brought up the topic they were a subtopic in. Why do you keep repeating the same lies? Is there a reason other than that you're deeply mentally ill?

    “Abusive”? Am I keeping you here?

    Why do you keep acting like you need everything repeated so many times? Is there a reason other than that you're a pathologically abusive person?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I'm not holding you captive, making you respond. That it upsets you so much is an entirely self-inflicted problem.

    Incorrect. You brought up the topic they were a subtopic in. Why do you keep repeating the same lies? Is there a reason other than that you’re deeply mentally ill?

    Here's you first mentioning them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I’m not holding you captive, making you respond.

    I didn't ask if you were. Why waste time typing that?

    That it upsets you so much is an entirely self-inflicted problem.

    I don't understand. How much do you mean? What problem? Whose self?

    Here’s you first mentioning them.

    First mentioning what, and why are you giving me a link to my own post?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I didn’t ask if you were. Why waste time typing that?

    I didn't ask if you asked. Why waste time typing that?

    I don’t understand. How much do you mean? What problem? Whose self?

    You keep crying about me abusing you.

    First mentioning what, and why are you giving me a link to my own post?

    You can't be serious. You really can't be serious. You can't trace back 1 post to see what I was referring to there in the source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I didn’t ask if you asked. Why waste time typing that?

    It wasn't a waste of time, my words matter.

    You keep crying about me abusing you.

    Incorrect. Perhaps you have "crying" confused with "replying."

    You can’t be serious.

    I think I'm kinda good at being serious, actually.

    You really can’t be serious.

    Repeating it doesn't make me agree.

    You can’t trace back 1 post to see what I was referring to there in the source?

    What do you mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It wasn’t a waste of time, my words matter.

    Didn't ask. Why waste time?

    Incorrect. Perhaps you have “crying” confused with “replying.”

    Are you of the opinion that when I said "crying" there I literally thought you were in tears at your keyboard?

    What do you mean?

    You mentioned Hamas.ps first. The timeline shows this. Here is the link. You genuinely forgot that was what I posted to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Didn’t ask.

    Didn't ask if you asked.

    Why waste time?

    You tell me, you're the one that keeps doing it.

    Are you of the opinion that when I said “crying” there I literally thought you were in tears at your keyboard?

    Nope. Are you still pretending my straightforwardness makes it hard to believe I can understand euphemisms? (Rhetorical question, obviously you are)

    You mentioned Hamas.ps first. The timeline shows this. Here is the link.

    Is there a point here?

    You genuinely forgot that was what I posted to you?

    Forgot what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Nope. Are you still pretending my straightforwardness makes it hard to believe I can understand euphemisms? (Rhetorical question, obviously you are)

    I neither view you as straight-forward, nor able to understand euphemisms.

    You mentioned Hamas.ps first. The timeline shows this. Here is the link.

    Is there a point here?

    Yes, you claimed I bought up Hamas.ps first. I did not. You did. The evidence backs that up.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)