image of blurry, potato-quality text without link to source or text alternative
Instead of posting that in a way that breaks accessibility, searchability, authenticability, and fault tolerance for no compelling reason while making the web less usable, could OP try at least linking to sources?
They were complaining the blockee could write any public response even an impersonal one.
Doxxing & other issues likely already violate rules & I don’t see how that would happen, since we don’t reveal much about ourselves. I don’t see how defamation would happen without a real identity. Harassment likely wouldn’t fit the legal definition: at most, some call being incredibly annoying harassment.
I’ve seen threatening replies I didn’t report (because I consider online threats vacant hyperbole) result in bans.
I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public.
Acknowledging your disagreement, it’s observable fact that it is. It’s readable to the public & open to public input. That input may be more concerned with responding to ideas (eg, as a criticism or corroboration) and presenting that to the public reader than for communicating specifically to the author of the text that inspired it. I certainly read primarily for content & ideas and respond accordingly like I’m trying to show the public something. Anyone can respond.
Comments I release to the public I treat as the public’s & not really mine. If that’s not for you, then I don’t think you’re identifying a technical limitation but a disagreement with design goals: the design of lemmy makes much sense for public discussion.
With private, direct messages, you may have a better argument.
Nah, in a public discussion, you/authorship isn’t the primary concern, the text & interest of the public is primary. Whether you want to see that text is your liberty. The liberty of the public, however, is to likewise decide for themselves whether to read the text no matter who authors it regardless of petty disagreements between authors. Your disagreements aren’t ours.
Just like in offline public discussions, no one should decide whether the public gets to see a marvelous takedown of text you happened to write just because you disagree with the author of that spectacular takedown.
Because neener-neener & too bad so sad?
Seriously, though, you shouldn’t get to decide for everyone who to censor. Just because you don’t want to see it doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. That would be tyranny of the overly sensitive.
Are you enabling/promoting exclusion & ableism?
It’s totally comprehensible
Not really.
Not linking to source, because they hate the hosting platform is feel-good, petty vindictiveness that that does little against the platform while actually hurting the uninvolved on accessibility & usability. To prevent traffic to platforms, linking to alternatives like proxies for those services & web archival snapshots is common practice around here.
No shit, they have boards of executives who are cowards & just looking to maximize stock returns. Editorial freedom? Stand up to right-wing pressure & tell them to go suck a dick? Nah, sacrifice integrity & cave like bitchasses.
A company not standing behind its commentators who didn’t even say anything false for fear of lawsuit from orange man or mob outrage.
It’s also an ethical norm.
Legally, however, media company executives caving and settling lawsuits with obscene payouts to Trump while in office draws into question decisions at other media companies that appear to chill free speech to avoid further legal action.
Cowardice is a standard?
OP: Instead of posting an image of an image of text without link to source or text alternative, which breaks accessibility, searchability, and fault tolerance for no compelling reason while making the web less usable, could you try at least linking to source?
Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use.
That’s a weird of saying having an executive board that is weak as fuck & won’t stand behind their commentators.
Does that mean you don’t believe in empathy?
Sincerely believing in empathy as a guide doesn’t mean only when it’s convenient. Empathy isn’t supposed to be convenient.
For clarification, I’m not claiming he deserves empathy.
I feel bad that piece of shit procreated.
cosmic karma at work
just-world fallacy & Hindu karma doesn’t work that way
That unnecessary image of text could have been accessible, quoted text that supports searches and is fault tolerant against image breaks.
possible to be empathetic about the manner of his death and the suffering
What would that the serve? Seems like a waste of emotion.
an awful lot of victims who claimed this independent of each other
That’s a reasonable basis to expect conclusive evidence to exist & search for it. Unless that evidence turns up, we don’t conclusively know.
we know there’s a black book
Do we? There’s
released a while ago. That black book in particular is inconclusive of anything.
Maybe you’re referring to a more damning black book, but the press so far has written that claims it exists come from speculation & myth. It’s possible it exists, but I don’t think we know it.
We need a parody book of the Bible like a Gospel of Charlie Kirk where he preaches empathy is bullshit, school shootings are totally worth right to own guns, and great replacement theory. It’d be as consistent as the rest of the Bible.