▲ 5 ▼ Why does Piefed block Rumble and Odysee by default? And while we are at it why isn't Kick blocked instead which actually contain harmful content? (raw.githubusercontent.com) submitted 3 days ago by beep@piefed.world to c/piefed_help@piefed.social 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] INeedMana@piefed.zip 6 points 3 days ago (25 children) I guess https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-media-misinformation/ permalink fedilink source hideshow 25 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago (24 children) This. They are basically troll-farm extensions of the Russian/Iranian/Chinese alliance in their effort to destroy liberal democracy. No, I am not exaggerating . permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (23 children) That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 8 points 2 days ago (8 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend's freedom gets obliterated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (7 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. That's every platform, my guy. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend’s freedom gets obliterated. That's not happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (3 children) Nope. More like saying MAGA has good and bad messages. There is not a moral equivalence. The platform is a weapon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children) Nope. The moral equivalence is every other platform . They're all guilty of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (9 children) It makes a lot of sense. One of the central points of fedi is that every instance can choose their own rules to be governed by. If you think the main point of fedi is being a libertarian free-for-all then I don't think you've been paying attention (there's Nostr for that). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (8 children) What doesn't make sense isn't that instances are allowed to choose what content is allowed. What doesn't make sense is this decision, in particular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago (24 children) This. They are basically troll-farm extensions of the Russian/Iranian/Chinese alliance in their effort to destroy liberal democracy. No, I am not exaggerating . permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (23 children) That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 8 points 2 days ago (8 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend's freedom gets obliterated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (7 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. That's every platform, my guy. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend’s freedom gets obliterated. That's not happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (3 children) Nope. More like saying MAGA has good and bad messages. There is not a moral equivalence. The platform is a weapon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children) Nope. The moral equivalence is every other platform . They're all guilty of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (9 children) It makes a lot of sense. One of the central points of fedi is that every instance can choose their own rules to be governed by. If you think the main point of fedi is being a libertarian free-for-all then I don't think you've been paying attention (there's Nostr for that). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (8 children) What doesn't make sense isn't that instances are allowed to choose what content is allowed. What doesn't make sense is this decision, in particular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (23 children) That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 8 points 2 days ago (8 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend's freedom gets obliterated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (7 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. That's every platform, my guy. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend’s freedom gets obliterated. That's not happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (3 children) Nope. More like saying MAGA has good and bad messages. There is not a moral equivalence. The platform is a weapon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children) Nope. The moral equivalence is every other platform . They're all guilty of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (9 children) It makes a lot of sense. One of the central points of fedi is that every instance can choose their own rules to be governed by. If you think the main point of fedi is being a libertarian free-for-all then I don't think you've been paying attention (there's Nostr for that). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (8 children) What doesn't make sense isn't that instances are allowed to choose what content is allowed. What doesn't make sense is this decision, in particular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 8 points 2 days ago (8 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend's freedom gets obliterated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (7 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. That's every platform, my guy. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend’s freedom gets obliterated. That's not happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -2 points 2 days ago (7 children) If the platform is volunteering to host Russian propaganda videos instead of banning them, the platform should not be used by real people. That's every platform, my guy. The basic concepts of freedom include not just watching from the side when your friend’s freedom gets obliterated. That's not happening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 5 points 2 days ago (6 children) Not happening?? И н х. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children) Oops, I think you may have accidentally forgotten to turn off your Russian keyboard there, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (4 children) Artyom... The only Slavic language that has "yo" is Russian. You do know what i, n and kh mean together. Even in your own alphabet. Ch t s, i n kh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (3 children) LOL you think that's my real name? I suppose yours is Lehmuusa? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago (2 children) Yes, most likely that's your real name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) Did your parents give you that name? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 0 points 2 days ago Rus? Ni! Peace? Da! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 6 points 2 days ago (3 children) Nope. More like saying MAGA has good and bad messages. There is not a moral equivalence. The platform is a weapon. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children) Nope. The moral equivalence is every other platform . They're all guilty of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 2 days ago (2 children) Nope. The moral equivalence is every other platform . They're all guilty of it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 2 days ago (1 child) They’re all guilty of it. Fun fact about countries with high levels of corruption: the general feeling among citizens is that "everyone is doing it" -- so if they don't participate they are a chump. A more developed moral sense includes stronger personal accountability. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 2 days ago* I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're agreeing with me? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (9 children) It makes a lot of sense. One of the central points of fedi is that every instance can choose their own rules to be governed by. If you think the main point of fedi is being a libertarian free-for-all then I don't think you've been paying attention (there's Nostr for that). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (8 children) What doesn't make sense isn't that instances are allowed to choose what content is allowed. What doesn't make sense is this decision, in particular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (8 children) What doesn't make sense isn't that instances are allowed to choose what content is allowed. What doesn't make sense is this decision, in particular. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (7 children) So they should be allowed to choose what content to block, but only if you agree with it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago (6 children) If you want to have a conversation about the content of my statement we can do that. If you only want to repeatedly misrepresent my statement, we cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fr0g@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (5 children) It's not really a misrepresentation. You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort and there's no purely objective way to make sense of that. The very least thing you could do of you want tp engage in a good faith exploration of the topic would be to at least try to find out what the reasoning of the person who set those rules was before you deem them to not make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago* (4 children) You are saying the decision doesn't make sense. But the correct way to put it is that it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, that much is implied...who else would I be talking about? People have different standards of judging what they deem harmful/suitable for the community/worth the effort Yes and those standards are not all the same. Some of them are bad. This one is bad. If you want to provide a counterargument we can debate whether it's bad. Go ahead. try to find out what the reasoning The reasoning was already explained before I got here. The reasoning is what I said didn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 1 day ago (3 children) I'll go ahead: Why is it bad? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 1 day ago (2 children) I explained in my original reply permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lehmuusa@nord.pub 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child) It says: That doesn't make any sense. You would think the people of the fedi would understand basic concepts of freedom. Freedom can be used for good or bad. Odysee has good and bad videos. As does YouTube, Instagram, and every other platform. If you want to ban videos, ban the videos. Banning an entire platform is nonsense. All you're doing is reinforcing YouTube's monopoly. That gives no explanation to why some standard unspecified by you is bad. Why is the standard bad, in your opinion? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 point 16 hours ago* Yes, it very much does. The standard is not unspecified. The standard is blocking these platforms, as stated in OP. permalink fedilink source parent