I stand by what I said.
The original post did not contain any of this information and did imply that feddit.uk admins were slow to react and did not see this as priority. The discussion around pushback to the comment was actually brought up by a feddit.uk admin who described your statement as mischaracterization.
Would you prefer a more celebratory article? What’s your arguement?
The stuff about supporting the Madison Square Garden facial recognition of critiques is crazy (among other crazy things).
An instance can do what they want. That doesn’t change the fact that accusing admins of another instance of supporting transphobia (that was de facto the claimed reason for defederation) without proof is not appropriate.
The end result of your line of thinking is that one cannot recognize their own ethnicity as that would be racist.
It would be like you telling an ethnic Lemkos that it’s racist for them to claim they are not white.
Where does it say that? Please cite the exact part that calls for “separate” approach.
Be clear and specific.
I have, yes. Nothing about the statement implies Pondercat is full of shit (i.e. lying).
Because if the text is correct, the argument that you want to prevent brigading isn’t relevant anymore. If the text is incorrect and one is concerned about brigading, then one would openly let everyone know that Pondercat has the wrong text.
You’re welcome to assume bad faith or not bother, it’s your right.
The fact remains, you don’t know whether Pondercat is full of shit or not. You don’t have any evidence and you are not interested in interacting with Pondercat.
"Prevent brigading” is irrelevant at this point, the text is out, so you cannot prevent brigading if it’s real. So the question about transparency remains.
Pointing out clear lapses in logic is not “sowing division”.
This is a pretty simplistic, almost child-like take.
You can recognize the self-interested nature of the US, while also pointing out how they are not being efficient for their own goals (that also benefit us).
But you didn’t ask the user how he got it! Surely before claiming that he is full of shit, you could have spent ~10 seconds typing out, “what is your source?” I didn’t see you do that in piefed thread.
Not even feddit.uk’s users, the admins there have the context and if they decide to share it is up to them.
BLZ can do whatever, but others are also allowed to make their own conclusions about the possible reasons for the lack of transparency.
That’s not out of this world for the type of tech that is being discussed, especially considering costs in the US are very high.
Ada also pretty clearly stated why she didn’t link to the offending content: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/14101300 in that she didn’t want to start a brigade, which I honestly think is pretty upstanding behaviour on her part. As well, I don’t see where the actual content has been linked, so I think the commenter above you might be full of shit, unless they can give a source.
How do you know the poster is full of shit? You didn’t even ask for the source.
Also defederating from an instance while not including the actual offending content is not very transparent.
But also defederate an instance because their admins don’t comply their own rules doesn’t feel wrong.
Read the “offending” text:
https://sh.itjust.works/post/36737764/18213591
This is hardly transphobia.
You should let the admins read the text for themselves first and make a decision.
If the US had true gumption, they would be testing their hypersonic missiles via launches out of Ukraine aimed at high value russian military targets, with a pretend excuse that it was actually Ukraine launching the missile.
I can guarantee you most of Ukraine would support this (I live in Ukraine) and the “red line” bla bla is just westerners falling prey to russian foreign propaganda initiatives.
Corrupt American oligarch thinks he can deal with incredibly complex issues just because he’s been able to run scams in the US for a few decade (a country which is arguably one of the most friendly places for oligarchs in the world, some smaller exceptions notwithstanding).
How could you have thought that was true? It would be impossible for me to think that as there is documented evidence to the contrary.
At any rate, do you have something concrete to say or where you just being pedantic about “all russians” verses “At the very least a strong majority of russians…?”
On one hand I agree with you as I know several russians who are capable of good faith.
One could say:
At the very least a strong majority of russians, and more likely an overwhelming majority, are incapable of good faith thinking/negotiations with respect to geopolitics. Even many allegedly opposition-minded “liberal” russians such as Navalniy and his movements has shown support for the annexation of Crimea and denied the genocidal atrocities committed by russians in Chechnya in the 90s.
I will note that your statement is factually false:
I believe you mean Russian heads of government and military [are incapable of good faith negotiations].
This is basically white washing russian genocidal imperialism.
Again, do you have something concrete to back up the above-mentioned viewed? Surely it should go both ways?
Thank you for confirming the following:
Courtesy of FauxLiving (an excellent point I must add).