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 2 days ago by to c/piefed_help@piefed.social
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (3 children)

    I'll go ahead:

    Why is it bad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children)

    I explained in my original reply

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 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
    •