It isn't and this is the one of many replies in which you haven't provided even a single example.

This is because you can't provide something that doesn't exist.

Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you'd provide it.

I can't see a scenario where you aren't trolling for engagement.

I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that's OK, if that's your skill ceiling i won't hold it against you.

But.. i'm willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?

You got this, i believe in you.

Also, i'll save you some time , a reply that doesn't contain a quotable example of what you've claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.

citation?

A single example is fine, i can't find any, but perhaps i'm missing something important.

Cauterisation with extremely hot metal works to seal a wound (and as far as upfront costs go, is cheaper).

Doesn't mean modern medical care isn't the preference.

People are people, manage your expectations accordingly.

These kinds of federated services were never meant to be better than reddit in a content sense, all they do is provide a system in which the possibility of a subjectively better platform was possible.

More simply, federated services are about federation/decentralisation.

The idiomatic solution to the problem you're describing is either to:

start your own federated instance, with the prerequisite amount of hookers and blackjack, but also sufficient rules and moderational enforcement to adhere to your expectations of what a better reddit looks like.

or

find an instance that already does this and join it.

This is a thing that is possible in a federated service, which is the actual difference between reddit and lemmy/piefed etc

smug prick.

I was going for sarcasm, but i can see the interpretational difference.

I suppose game recognises game.

"On this site, they are one and the same." sounds like something a condescending, smug prick might say as an opener.

but by all means, tell me more about what everyone on this public forum thinks.

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn't an asset it's probably not a great idea to get caught lying.

I will say though, having been employed, the ability to "gracefully massage" the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.

Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.

Assuming you are asking genuinely, here's an answer.

Q wasn't created as a result of V's(or P's) intolerance, it's a specialisation of a larger group, P.

P and Q aren't mutually exclusive, you can be both.

V can and do enjoy both P and it's subgenre/offshoot Q.

If you don't understand in general why larger social groups might sometimes give rise to more specilaised subgroups or offshoots (for reasons other than exclusion) then any answer you receive is not going to make sense to you.

Incidentally, the same explanation works for the cooking show example, as it's the same basic premise.

I'm not the person who replied to you but I'm fairly confident that person was mimicking your phrasing with an example they thought was simpler for you to understand, in order for you to see how it sounded incorrect.

It seems you didn't get the context of that, which is probably why it seemed like an odd reply.

in contextual translation:

If television viewers were accepting of cooking then why did they have to create a subgenre of cooking shows?

becomes

In the same way that cooking shows exist as a sub-genre of TV shows in general without requiring broadcasters to have first banned cooking on TV , queercore can exist without requiring punk to have first been intolerant of it's LGBTQIA+ members.

i'm of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[a good faith best effort, considering the circumstances] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.

In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.

In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[the general idea not the US specific thing] isn't freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn't freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.

If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it's up to you.

However, i'm also free to try and stop you if that's what i choose. In this case i'm not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.

The difference is in the potential for creep.

The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who's identity is verified in the app.

What's to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it's been issued ?

As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said "over 18", you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn's weren't widespread enough to be a problem.

Skip to now and they've got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn't and can't work the way they want.

A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

I'm not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.

The problem you're having is that your looking for a logical answer without considering the mindset of the other side.

They aren’t trying to build a reason based/lawful way to defend themselves.

They are using bad faith and/or weaponised ignorance to be cruel dicks, that's the point.

They can then build on top of this to be even greater dicks to a larger variety of people.

There are potentially other motivations in the bigger picture, but at this level it's just "how can i weaponise my truly astonishing levels of crippling insecurity to hurt the 'other'" because that's how they pretend they have control/power enough to enjoy life.

They're the self-appointed Gender HOA, giving out citations because they have nothing else in their life.