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* (65 children)

    You have provided no evidence that instance admins "answer to" the President or "ICANN", or are placed at his whim. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Are you claiming that the US government issues orders to the instance owners of piefed.social, feddit.org and lemmy.zip?

    You know that these instances are both owned and hosted by non-americans, right?


    I can believe that nazis should be banned by the fediverse and oppose hypothetical government control of the fediverse, you know. These aren't mutually incompatible positions.


    And yes, I suppose sites can be taken down for child porn hosting. So? That seems like a good thing to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 65 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    placing the burden of proof on me

    That's how the burden of proof works. You make a claim, you provide proof.

  • 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
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (56 children)

    That is an insane position. You can look it up and you shouldn’t even need to. Why is your default stance that it’s not true and you won’t look it up, placing the burden of proof on me? Why would I look it up for you in response to that? It’s not like what I’ve said is some wild hard to believe shit where you could think I’m trying to embarrass you or waste your time looking it up.

    You made the claims. You back it up. Where is your evidence that Lemmy instance owners are appointed by the government?

    I am not claiming that any particular individual is issuing orders to individual Lemmy instance admins.

    I am also not claiming that there is a “US government,” or that any Lemmy instance has particular “owners.”

    You alleged the US government appointed lemmy instances owners.

    No, why?

    So they don't answer to the US government. You should try to understand more about the instances on here you seek to chastise.

    OK. Why do you bring it up though?

    Because you keep bringing it up. You are essentially complaining about two separate things in your OP, one current - and one hypothetical.

    But I didn’t ask if you think it’s a good thing. I’m tired of hearing about people paying for ambulance rides. I want communication infrastructure. I’ve noticed a fundamental systemic problem with Lemmy.

    No, you have noticed that instances have their own terms of service and you don't like that, and that hypothetically Lemmy instances could be shut down by government bodies in the future due to the system. Two separate things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 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 (54 children)

    Lemny instances absolutely do have their own owners. And any instance can federate with who they like, but that doesn't mean the instance on the other side has to accept it.

    Are you implying that no instance should be allowed to reject incoming federation attempts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 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 (52 children)

    They can’t really have “their own owners” without Tor. They’re relying on DNS / IP addresses, which are (successfully) designed to collectivize all ownership of all addresses within them. Tor’s onion addresses are the ones designed for individualized ownership.

    They still own the actual instance that exists on their local servers. If they are meddled with, they're meddled with but this is a hypothetical currently. They certainly "own" their server more than I do or you do.

    Then change the documentation to explain how, instead of having the docs suggest it can’t be done.

    What? What docs suggest it can't be done?

    No, are you inferring that somehow?

    So what's your issue then? If lemmy.nazi set up shop tomorrow, every single instance would block them and they could be unable to federate because no-one would want to federate with them. What now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 52 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 (19 children)

    How?

    It's backed up at home, presumably.

    How? Do I need to yet again repeat how this isn’t true, because you missed it, or are you just leaving out another half of the paragraph where you support your statements and connect your counter-argument to the context?

    You have provided no example of any regulatory body or government meddling with interfering with the operation of any Lemmy instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 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 (17 children)

    You have provided no reason I should provide an example, despite repeatedly suggesting I should, and repeatedly being asked why.

    Because you made the claims. You back it up. Not moving on this.

    I’ll ask another thing this time: what do you find when you just look it up? Does that not work?

    There is no example. It doesn't exist. It hasn't happened.

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

    You have provided no reason I should provide an example, despite repeatedly suggesting I should, and repeatedly being asked why.

    Because you made the claims. You back it up. Not moving on this.

    I don't see any valid reasoning here. Wondering if you'll try again or not - hopefully you're done wasting time repeating this nonsense.

    I’ll ask another thing this time: what do you find when you just look it up? Does that not work?

    There is no example. It doesn’t exist. It hasn’t happened.

    Screenshot where you get that search result?

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

    I don’t see any valid reasoning here. Wondering if you’ll try again or not - hopefully you’re done wasting time repeating this nonsense.

    I'm never done. You made the claims, you back it up.

    Screenshot where you get that search result?

    How can I prove a negative? There's no example that you can provide of a lemmy instance being forcibly censored by outside actors.

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

    I’m never done.

    Are you implying I'll run out of motivation to embarrass you, before you run out of motivation to embarrass yourself?

    Seems unlikely.

    You made the claims, you back it up.

    Why? You've repeatedly suggested I should do this, but repeatedly ignored me asking why.

    What do you see when you Google it? That's another question you keep ignoring.

    How can I prove a negative?

    Why do you ask such a dumb question right after quoting the part where I asked for proof of your search result, which you didn't include?

    There’s no example that you can provide of a lemmy instance being forcibly censored by outside actors.

    Didn't ask. Why waste time with this part?

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

    Why do you ask such a dumb question right after quoting the part where I asked for proof of your search result, which you didn’t include?

    How can a search result disprove a negative? Do you actually know what I mean by that?

    Didn’t ask. Why waste time with this part?

    I did. Where's your evidence for this claim? And you have suggested it repeatedly in other comments.

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

    How can a search result disprove a negative?

    Not my problem. Why the fuck are you asking me while you keep ignoring me asking you to prove a search result? Why would I have advice for you on some random unrelated shit right now?

    Do you actually know what I mean by that?

    I'm just reading it as plain English. If you mean something other than what you said, it's not my problem, is there some reason I should give a fuck?

    I did.

    The question was: "why waste time with this part?"

    Where’s your evidence for this claim?

    I remember not asking.

    And you have suggested it repeatedly in other comments.

    Because you have repeatedly injected irrelevant shit I didn't ask about in yours.

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

    Not my problem. Why the fuck are you asking me while you keep ignoring me asking you to prove a search result? Why would I have advice for you on some random unrelated shit right now?

    No, you don't understand disproving a negative. You made the claim. You back it up. Where's your evidence of a Lemmy instance being shut down by "the authorities"?

    I’m just reading it as plain English. If you mean something other than what you said, it’s not my problem, is there some reason I should give a fuck?

    Not an answer. Do you know what "disprove a negative" means?

    I remember not asking.

    But I did. I want an answer.

    Because you have repeatedly injected irrelevant shit I didn’t ask about in yours.

    I don't even think you know what you're replying to at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 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 (9 children)

    Also not true. “Disproving a negative” is pretty basic English. I might not understand you using random words you don’t know the meanings of, but I know the meanings of the words themselves.

    So what do I mean when I say "Disprove a negative" then?

    Why? What do you get when you Google it? You keep ignoring these questions so far.

    I haven't googled anything. I'm awaiting evidence from you of a lemmy instance being shut down by the "authorities".

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

    So what do I mean when I say “Disprove a negative” then?

    Hopefully the opposite of "proving a negative," i.e. to do the opposite of proving with the opposite of a positive, but you've shown it's not safe to assume you're using terminology correctly, so I have no fucking idea, and your use of the word "so" is weird here, like me knowing what words mean is supposed to mean I know what you mean by them when you keep using your own secret definitions of things. For all I know, you mean the common phrase "proving a negative" and you simply remembered it wrong.

    I haven’t googled anything.

    Maybe you should try it.

    I’m awaiting evidence from you of a lemmy instance being shut down by the “authorities”.

    Why? I didn't tell you to do that.

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

    You don't even know most of the active lemmy instances. I find it unlikely that you have any evidence of any Lemmy instance having being shut down by the "authorities" (tm)

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

    You don’t even know most of the active lemmy instances.

    Who asked if I did?

    I find it unlikely that you have any evidence of any Lemmy instance having being shut down by the “authorities” ™

    I didn't ask if you do.

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

    The point is that you're claiming all this knowledge of the fediverse when you've clearly barely scratched the surface.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It means you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you aren't even familiar with hardly any instances, how can you claim to know how they all inter-operate, and what ones are non-censorious etc?

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

    It means you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Whatever it is, it can't, since "not knowing what you're talking about" is a euphemism for acting like you know more than you do, which you have no real evidence of me doing.

    If you aren’t even familiar with hardly any instances, how can you claim to know how they all inter-operate, and what ones are non-censorious etc?

    Anyone could answer that. Better question: why would I?

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

    Whatever it is, it can’t, since “not knowing what you’re talking about” is a euphemism for acting like you know more than you do, which you have no real evidence of me doing.

    You barely know anything about the Fediverse. It's readily apparent.

    Anyone could answer that. Better question: why would I?

    No, they couldn't. Only people who are somewhat familiar with the online geography of the fediverse could give you an overview. You couldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago*

    It’s readily apparent.

    Did you consider maybe that's why I didn't ask?

    No, they couldn’t.

    I think they could.

    Only people who are somewhat familiar with the online geography of the fediverse could give you an overview.

    No, pretty much anyone who's ever posted on the internet would give a good enough answer for me. "Type and click the post button" basically

    You couldn’t.

    I just did, but the better question still isn't how, it's why? That's the one I might not be able to answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • 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
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (29 children)

    https://join-lemmy.org/docs/administration/tor_hidden_service.html

    That's just TOR, not federation.

    That would be pretty embarrassing for them and the Lemmy devs because Lemmy has no Tor federation, which makes lemmy.nazi an idiot project for trying to exist, and makes Lemmy an idiot project for baiting people to use it to try to make things it doesn’t work for

    How would they be "baiting" them exactly? I don't recall where the Lemmy devs explicitly advertised it like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (28 children)

    That's just TOR, not federation.

    On desktop, use "ctrl+f"

    On mobile, find the "search in page" feature for your browser

    Then type "federation"

    Or, to find it more easily: try reading the second paragraph of the link

    How would they be “baiting” them exactly? I don’t recall where the Lemmy devs explicitly advertised it like that.

    Odd. People keep telling me Lemmy advertises itself as a place where everyone can start their own communities with "self-hosted" instances that combine using "federation"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    Yes, Lemmy apparently doesn't work over TOR. But normal federation works. You just don't like how it works.

    People keep telling me Lemmy advertises itself as a place where everyone can start their own communities with self-hosted instances that “federate” together

    Lemmy is open-source software that anyone can use and host their own instance (not community) and set out the rules within that instance as they please. But that doesn't mean anyone is going to want to play with you if you have posting standards almost everywhere else doesn't agree with.

  • 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
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    I don’t get what you mean by “normal federation.” Lemmy has a thing called “federation” that doesn’t work.

    Yes, it does. Instances can choose to federate with each other, to share content.

    Why do you disagree with the dictionary’s definitions of the word “community” and Lemmy’s use of it in the UI?

    I haven't read how Lemmy distinguishes between instances and communities and how they refer to them.

    Incorrect. Lemmy doesn’t support Tor federation, so this doesn’t work. How many times do I have to repeat myself in this thread?

    Not supporting TOR federation does not mean an instance owner can't set out their own custom rules on the instance.

    And I never said anything about “playing” - the only reason you’d use the term “play with you” is because you’re into gaslighting.

    Dear me, it's just a turn of phrase.

    And you know I’m not the only person who’s against censorship - so the only reason you’d waste time trying to suggest I’m on my own, is because you’re into gaslighting.

    Almost everyone on the fediverse disagrees with you. That's the relevant demographic here.

    And you embarrass yourself severely with your standard of replies around someone like me, so the only reason for phrasing like “posting standards” is, again, because you’re into gaslighting.

    By "posting standards" I mean rules of an instance. If your instance allows abuse, slurs, insults, threats etc - you'll be marginalised and isolated.

  • 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)

    But it doesn’t work for the advertised / ostensibly intended purpose, of improving on the reddit model. That was the topic. Why do you keep pretending you can’t remember anything I’ve said? Just to gaslight me, right?

    The fact that the Fediverse is split up into different instances is the improvement in itself.

    Didn’t ask. Why did you waste my time with this, and why is it right after a part where you quoted me asking yet another question you ignored?

    Most of your questions are incoherent or loaded.

    Under the current model, you are incorrect. Not supporting TOR federation does mean an instance owner can’t set out their own custom rules on the instance.

    Presumably by "custom rules" here you mean "not allowing CSAM".

    To who? To what?

    To the Fediverse. If no-one agrees with you here, you're going to make no headway.

    Are you scared in the future, it will be abusers like you who are marginalized and isolated, instead of the people who work on revealing you to the public?

    How am I an abuser? What are you implying here?

  • 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
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    Nope. Hasn’t solved anything so far, due to broken federation.

    Federation isn't broken. I'm not bound by your rather broken understanding or expectations of federation. But it works as it intends to.

    Plus, there were already separate instances of reddit, using reddit’s open source code, if you don’t care about federation.

    And no-one used them.

    Nope. This seems like shallower projection and lazier gaslighting than you’ve been doing so far.

    Name some of my loaded questions.

    Nope. Also, not sure you know what “presumably” means.

    So what custom rules can an instance owner not implement on their instance?

    You have wasted hours of my day gaslighting me.

    Am I making you reply?

    Are you scared in the future, it will be abusers like you who are marginalized and isolated, instead of the people who work on revealing you to the public?

    This is a loaded question, tantamount to "Are you still beating your wife?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 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 (19 children)

    Incorrect, refuted in my original post and many times repeatedly throughout this thread, including this subthread with you. You have made me repeat this and other related statements so many times. It’s pretty abusive behavior.

    No, your comments on federation suggest you just outright don't understand how it is supposed to work. It is working as intended.

    Perhaps, but ostensibly not, and not as it’s advertised and commonly understood.

    No-one else seems to view it as you seem to.

    Like last time, this is still a rhetorical question, because I haven’t forgotten you’re a nobody with nothing real to offer.

    Yet you keep replying.

    Reporting for yet more insults.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 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 (7 children)

    Why tell such a dumb lie when it’s pretty much just us here?

    It's not commonly understood as you view it at all. Show me someone who thinks federation ought work as you do.

    Ah, so that’s why you keep acting like there are other people reading this? You’re hoping mods or admins will ban me or remove my comments for some flimsy justification you’ve been trying to fabricate? Plausible. We’ll see.

    When did I imply anyone else is reading this? I didn't make you hurl insults. You choose to. That's on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 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* (5 children)

    What’s not?

    The Fediverse.

    Obviously, if you’re not offering any money, I can’t think of any individuals I would subject to the risk of you harassing them. If you are offering any money, they would want the payment up front before I draw your attention to them and expose them to that risk, and you seem like a capitalist who’s way too poor and distrustful to offer payment up front. It’s hard to guess why you typed this, except that you do seem very obsessed with wasting time.

    "Harassing" = responding to them. How am I harassing you anymore than you're harassing me, by your logic?

    I think I said “act like,” not “imply,” if I remember right, and I didn’t even say it happened without pointing clearly at exactly where, so where did you get me saying “imply” and not being clear about what I was talking about?

    Don't see how I'm acting like it either.

    I didn’t ask if you did.

    I didn't say you did. I was making the point that you are responsible for your own conduct and how you treat others.

    I didn’t ask if it is. However, it’s weird that you seem to think you can judge others for insulting you after you insult them repeatedly.

    Name an insult I've thrown at you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The Fediverse.

    The Fediverse is not what?

    You keep acting like I'm going to remember all this shit, or scroll up to refresh my memory every time. I don't care that much what you have to say when you've wasted so many hours trolling me and gaslighting me.

    “Harassing” = responding to them.

    Didn't ask. Why waste time typing that?

    How am I harassing you anymore than you’re harassing me, by your logic?

    How am I supposed to answer this "by my logic" when I'm good enough at logic to comprehend how you're not necessarily harassing me?

    Don’t see how I’m acting like it either.

    I didn't ask if you do. What I asked was: "where did you get me saying “imply” and not being clear about what I was talking about?"

    I didn’t say you did.

    I didn't ask if you said that.

    I was making the point that you are responsible for your own conduct and how you treat others.

    I didn't ask what you think counts as a "point," so I stopped reading this sentence at "point" (though "responsible" also slipped into my field of view)

    Name an insult I’ve thrown at you.

    Is there anything in it for me? No. That was a rhetorical question. You have nothing to offer and you're basically just embarrassing yourself by repeatedly begging me to do shit.

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

    The Fediverse is not what?

    The Fediverse is not commonly understood as you understand it.

    Didn’t ask. Why waste time typing that?

    I'm making fun of your claim that replying to your replies constitutes harassment.

    How am I supposed to answer this “by my logic” when I’m good enough at logic to comprehend how you’re not necessarily harassing me?

    So I'm not harassing you, but I would apparently harass other people who agree with you if you named them to me?

    Is there anything in it for me? No. That was a rhetorical question. You have nothing to offer and you’re basically just embarrassing yourself by repeatedly begging me to do shit.

    So you can't. As usual. You have insulted me, I have not insulted you back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 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 (1 child)

    Right. I’m also prepared for the possibility you will start harassing me in the very near future. Why do you need me to explain your own behavior to you?

    How would I do that? Why would you assume I would do that? All I've done is reply to you in a thread.

    Incorrect. Repeating yourself doesn’t make it true. Try deleting or editing comments, if that will be enough to hide them from mods/admins. Or just keep lying if this place is actually corrupt enough for that to yield worthwhile results on its own.

    It wouldn't be enough to hide them because instance admins can see deleted posts. But in any case, I haven't insulted you. You have insulted me repeatedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Clever to keep driving home the point that I see through false advertising, in case you can bring a hammer down on me from some powerful Lemmy insider who’s scared of being exposed. I don’t really think any of them give a fuck though, it could probably work without all that cleverness if it does work at all.

    "Lemmy insider who is scared of being exposed"

    What are you on about? Exposed for what? What's a "Lemmy insider"?

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

    some powerful Lemmy insider who’s scared of being exposed. “Lemmy insider who is scared of being exposed”

    Why did you quote this part twice?

    What are you on about?

    This is always a weird question to ask in text-based discussions where you can just read stuff again, especially when the person you're responding to is just using the exact plain English words for simple and complete points.

    Exposed for what?

    False advertising, I guess? You tell me, you're the one that came up with the strategy.

    What’s a “Lemmy insider”?

    I have no guess for who you think is going to ban me for you. I think it's kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy (open source reddit clone) insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something.

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

    Why did you quote this part twice?

    Emphasis

    This is always a weird question to ask in text-based discussions where you can just read stuff again, especially when the person you’re responding to is just using the exact plain English words for simple and complete points.

    It's just an expression based on how absurd I thought your last point was.

    False advertising, I guess? You tell me, you’re the one that came up with the strategy.

    Literally no-one cares or views 'federation' as you do.

    I have no guess for who you think is going to ban me for you.

    That you have to ask this demonstrates how basic your understanding of the fediverse is.

    I think it’s kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something.

    No, this sounds like something you've made it up in your head. I never said that a "Lemmy insider" exists. That's what you said. Dude, I'm not even on Lemmy.

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

    Emphasis

    OK, but why the emphasis?

    It’s just an expression based on how absurd I thought your last point was.

    I didn't ask what you had to say about your own wording. I pointed out that it's weird, especially in this particular context.

    Literally no-one cares or views ‘federation’ as you do.

    Incorrect, and you know it. Is there a particular reason you'd pretend otherwise, except to gaslight me?

    That you have to ask this demonstrates how basic your understanding of the fediverse is.

    Didn't ask, don't have to ask, not sure why you thought that.

    No, this sounds like something you’ve made it up in your head.

    Not sure what you're trying to say here.

    I never said that a “Lemmy insider” exists.

    I didn't ask if you did.

    That’s what you said.

    No, I implied you seemed to think it. I never said you said it.

    Dude, I’m not even on Lemmy.

    Didn't ask, don't care, replying from Lemmy.

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

    I didn’t ask what you had to say about your own wording. I pointed out that it’s weird, especially in this particular context.

    Who gives a fuck? I told you why after I saw you commenting on it.

    Incorrect, and you know it. Is there a particular reason you’d pretend otherwise, except to gaslight me?

    How do I "know it is", exactly? I know of no such thing. I've never seen anyone hold this bizarre interpretation on federation as you do. Almost everyone in this thread disagrees with you.

    Didn’t ask, don’t have to ask, not sure why you thought that.

    You speak of "Lemmy insiders" but you don't see have a clue how the basics work.

    I didn’t ask if you did.

    You claimed that I "seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them". This is not true. I never said anything about a lemmy insider. You were the one who proposed that. Not me. I laughed at the idea.

    Not sure what you’re trying to say here.

    You made up the idea that I think a "Lemmy insider" exists.

    I didn’t ask if you did.

    But you did claim that I did. It's on record. Full quote: "I think it’s kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something."

    No, I implied you seemed to think it. I never said you said it.

    Seemed to think it based on what? You bought up the idea of some "Lemmy insider" and I queried it as a nonsense.

    Didn’t ask, don’t care, replying from Lemmy.

    My point here is that why would someone who doesn't use Lemmy here specifically think this at all.

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

    Who gives a fuck?

    About what? I don't feel like reading the part you quoted to check

    I told you why after I saw you commenting on it.

    Not sure what you're saying here, still don't feel like checking the context

    How do I “know it is”, exactly?

    Know what is?

    I know of no such thing.

    Not sure what such thing you mean but OK

    I’ve never seen anyone hold this bizarre interpretation on federation as you do.

    Still not really following but alright

    Almost everyone in this thread disagrees with you.

    Didn't ask, why waste time typing that?

    You speak of “Lemmy insiders” but you don’t see have a clue how the basics work.

    Again, not sure what you're trying to say

    You claimed that I “seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them”.

    Correct.

    This is not true.

    No, it was true.

    I never said anything about a lemmy insider.

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

    You were the one who proposed that.

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

    Not me.

    I still didn't ask.

    I laughed at the idea.

    Didn't ask if you did.

    You made up the idea that I think a “Lemmy insider” exists.

    Correct.

    But you did claim that I did.

    Did what?

    It’s on record.

    Hard to tell if you mean something that's actually on the record or not since I don't feel like checking what you're talking about and you keep lying constantly

    Full quote: “I think it’s kinda hilarious (but more concerning) that you seem convinced there is some powerful Lemmy insider who would be worried about me exposing them with my posts about Tor integration or something.”

    I didn't ask, why waste time with this quote?

    Seemed to think it based on what?

    Seemed to think what based on what? That some "Lemmy insider" would ban me? Why do you keep acting like you need so much stuff repeated?

    You bought up the idea of some “Lemmy insider” and I queried it as a nonsense.

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    My point here is that why would someone who doesn’t use Lemmy here specifically think this at all.

    Soon after "my point here is" this sentence seems to become complete gibberish, so kinda hard for it to be a point.

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

    The way you've broken up my quotes, splitting sentences apart makes it impossible to respond to. I'm 100% convinced all of this is a troll at this point. You've split my sentences is to the point where they have no context, and it makes it impossible to respond to you. You keep saying "I didn’t ask if you did. Why waste time typing that?" when I directly to your claims about me made only a few posts back. So I'm just going to focus on one thing.

    I didn’t ask, why waste time with this quote?

    I didn't say you did "ask", but you did accuse.

    Hard to tell if you mean something that’s actually on the record or not since I don’t feel like checking what you’re talking about and you keep lying constantly

    Here's you claiming I believe some Lemmy Insider exists.

    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

    You attempted to put words in my mouth and claimed I thought some "Lemmy Insider" would ban you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 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 (1 child)

    Incorrect. I keep saying that when you waste time typing random shit. You’ve wasted like 12 hours today.

    Imagine having no self-control that I'm to blame for your inability to stop replying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 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)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)