Conversation

Notices

1. pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 14:50:56 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

   • arcanicanis
   • william.maggos
   • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
   • Birbpilled Kranichposter
   • Bunnyslope
   @wjmaggos @amerika @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis
   
   > did you answer the question?
   
   I have now, but I had not when you typed that. I do notifications in chronological order, you should know that.
   
   > less text please.
   
   I can't, I gotta condition.
   • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 15:23:03 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • william.maggos
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • Birbpilled Kranichposter
     • Bunnyslope
     @wjmaggos @amerika @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis
     
     > yet you refused to explain that to me
     
     I explained it repeatedly and you ignored it every time.
     
     > and you go on about how moderation is bad
     
     Depending on what you mean by moderation, this makes no sense. I say "no opinions are censored" and I mean exactly that and you don't listen.
     
     > building a system where it will be impossible...
     
     Building a system under which no one will be able to censor another person? Yes, obviously. No one will be able to decide on anyone else's behalf what they can post, who they can talk to, or who they can listen to.
     
     The printing press was heavily opposed by the Catholic Church: you control history if propagating text relies on having an army of scribes. Hand-wringing from bishops about how, with a printing press, *anyone* could just print *any* kind of heresy ("misinformation" from their perspective) and propagate it all over. What I am building is much more modest than the printing press, but I do not understand why "completely uncensorable" could conceivably be a bad thing to anyone but a statist.
   • william.maggos (wjmaggos@liberal.city)'s status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 15:23:04 JST william.maggos

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • Birbpilled Kranichposter
     • Bunnyslope

     @p @amerika @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis

     I'm still confused.

     you don't allow spam. you consider such things as tagging people with "die slur" to be spam so don't allow that either. yet you refused to explain that to me because i didn't ask correctly and was rude even though you know what I meant and it's not explained in the stuff I could find on your site and links you sent. and you go on about how moderation is bad and you're building a system where it will be impossible...

     Machismo repeated this.
   • pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 15:33:45 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • william.maggos
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • shortstories
     • Birbpilled Kranichposter
     • Bunnyslope
     @shortstories @amerika @wjmaggos @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis This concern has been addressed in the design. There are facilities to keep a thing away from your machine and avoiding liability for something that you did not post and this is not done yet but there are much better filtering facilities planned than regular fedi software gives you (unless you are the admin).
   • shortstories@merovingian.club's status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 15:33:46 JST shortstories

     in reply to

     • arcanicanis
     • william.maggos
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • Birbpilled Kranichposter
     • Bunnyslope

     @p @amerika @wjmaggos @EmoIsDeadAndSoAmI @Bunnyslope @arcanicanis

     Police will post illegal porn on it then arrest everyone else on it

     Machismo repeated this.