I think there’s gray areas where someone comes in hot to play devil’s advocate and if they have a history that looks like a normal contrarian person elsewhere they might just get a removal and/or a warning, but if they’re a 2 day old account with 5 one word comments, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Granted, you shouldn’t expect mods to try to figure out your personal history and state of mind to know you weren’t trying to troll in your very first post in their community, but it’s at least something to try to sort out those gray area comments. Or something to review if the user appeals their ban.

And yeah, taking your bans with you in migration would be the cost of maintaining that history. It’s a commitment to owning your own posts and history.

From experience moderating on Reddit, user histories were pretty useful in judging whether they just made a mistake or were ban evading or trolling. If a fresh account drops in with a trollish comment as their first interaction with the community, they might just catch a ban rather than being treated as a good faith poster who came in too hot and deserves a second chance.

So if you migrate accounts in Lemmy, you’ll have to pay that price over again and risk more strict moderation because you have no history, whereas a Mastodon-like link to their previous account would establish a baseline.

The context is they’re positively stating the “men in women’s sports” part of that exchange.

https://lemmy.ca/comment/10767763

deleted by creator

It’s interesting how the most open instances aren’t the biggest ones with no user restrictions, but the smaller instances that no one has issues with. I moved away from LW because of performance issues, but I’m happy to be able to see both LW posts and BH posts. Sopuli has defederated from some instances, but I’m happy with their choices so it’s as unrestricted as I want it to be. Others would choose an even less restrictive/restricted small instance, or like yourself just run your own to have complete freedom.

This is unhinged. Someone building the mainline of an interoperable communication service should absolutely be helping others making software trying to interoperate with it. Complaints can be made about Rochko rejecting PRs, but complaining that other people’s time is going towards a thing they don’t want is insane.

“So they reached out to us and we had conversations about what they want to do, how they can do it, and we had more detailed conversations about how to do X, how to do Y protocol-wise. We helped them resolve some issues when they launched their first test of the federation because we want to see them succeed with this plan, so we help them debug and troubleshoot some of the stuff that they’re doing. Basically, we’re talking with each other about whatever issues come up.”

But from the perspective of hundreds of instances have signed the anti-Meta FediPact, and hundreds more are blocking Threads without signing the pact, any resources devoted to to improving the Threads/Mastodon integration are wasted.

I also think you’re an idiot for wasting your time with two contentless comments, so take that as a vote of confirmation.

“Free” vs. “open source” is a distinction without a practical difference. It’s not about what it is or what it does, it’s about vibes.

There’s no future step of “popularizing it”. They’ve been trying for 40 years and it’s been an abject failure. Another decade isn’t going to finally get it to stick, it’s just a dumb idea. It’s is a very up-their-own-asses grognard thing to just reject reality and keep demanding it happen. “Could it be that I am wrong? No, it must be everyone else who haven’t just done what I wanted them to do because I told them to.”

And yeah, “open source” and “source available” have some confusion, but that’s at least a battle that can be won, and in most cases if you call a source available software package (an actual package with license terms, not just every github project) “open source”, you’ll usually be right (source available and not open source is already a minority). Pointing to that like it justifies instead continuing the crusade for “free” isn’t even remotely comparing issues of similar difficulty.

Trying to jump in whenever someone calls costless software “free” with a “free as in beer”/“free as in speech” explanation or “no, that’s costless software, not free software” just makes FOSS look like an arcane and exclusionary movement for unpleasant nerds, like Richard Stallman.

If you’re going to complain that the GPL isn’t unrestricted (true), then it’s just as much a complaint about it not being “free” (as in freedom). Just use “open source”. It’s its own thing that people understand and is free from definitional conflicts that it will assuredly lose.

That there are these dumb mnemonics for “free as in…” just demonstrates how muddled the supposedly defined term is. If you need to continually explain what you mean by “free”, then it’s a failure as a descriptor.

But in context of software, free software means Libre.

It doesn’t though. It’s an awkward attempt to define what words mean by a niche group that even those who value its goals don’t commonly adhere to. I’ve been writing software for two decades now. If a colleague comes up to me and asks “is that software free?” they’re probably talking about cost. You can’t define away common usage. Pick a word that means what you want it to mean or make up a new term.

We all know what FOSS means, because it’s a unique term (yes, despite F being Free). We also all generally understand what “open source” means, even if there’s some confusion with “source available”. But “free”. That’s a total failure and people trying to pretend FSF has any power to define the word in relation to software are just delusional.

Anyway I can’t find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/free

“Unrestricted” or “permissive” both look good to me. Or as above, just use a term unique to software like “open source” and then you can define it to exactly the meaning you want.

Ambiguous words with context-dependent meanings don’t make trying to define only one meaning as correct a useful and reasonable task to attempt for a small foundation. There are also notably synonyms for “free” that don’t have that issue.

The Free Software Foundation isn’t a broad industry body defining standard terms for general software development, and even if they were, a term of use doesn’t supersede regular English. People using “free software” to mean “without cost software” aren’t in any way wrong, unless maybe they’re actual members of the FSF.

since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, “free software” doesn’t mean software whose price is zero, and “open-source software” doesn’t mean software whose source code is published in the open.)

The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don’t supersede regular English. That’s not a problem with “some people” being casual, it’s a problem with a small entity trying to claim a common term. The confusion is entirely their fault.

Nah, give those National Parks posters a Mastodon account. Way more desirable than POTUS. Also put all those other random gov Twitter accounts on it so they can link somewhere that anyone can read.

I mean, it’s not like he’s reading the Threads users’ comments either.

Just a totally straight blog about ice cream and cool cars, with no mention of politics.

If an instance defederates from another instance there’s nothing stopping a user who liked that instance that was defederated with from moving to, making an account on or just using (in the broadest sense) another instance which hasn’t defederated with the instance they like or that instance itself.

This functional consequence of defederation is telling their users they shouldn’t be allowed to interact with an instance. That they can just leave if they don’t like it doesn’t make the choice not coercive. Moving servers is certainly a viable option, but it’s a pain and doesn’t transfer content, so that’s still locked under the former server’s federation choice.

That’s one reason I moved to the fediverse: so I could get rid of all of the content I didn’t want to see before I saw it. More typical social media like Meta, Twitter and Reddit all have a long history of failing to moderate against anti-trans hate, as with other types of hate, so I moved to the fediverse.

On Mastodon, which is the place Threads is trying to federate with and which Katy was comparing it to, you can block instances. You no longer need your instance to make those decisions for you. Your desire to have Threads blocked at the instance level is at odds with Katy’s desire to follow trans people on it. You can do a simple thing to implement your desires without forcing anything on the other person.

What do you think the effect of “defederation” is?

Yeah, I’ve never even heard of them before now and would have no particular reason to trust that what they mean by “good” servers aligns with what I’d consider “good” servers. This isn’t like joinmastodon.org trying to strongarm instances to adopt their personal federation policy.

Well then I guess the pro-trans thing to do is tell Katy she shouldn’t be allowed to follow all those trans people.