I hear you.

I’d just offer a slight counter, which is that if the devs want their software to succeed, they should probably work a little harder to police how their politics overflow, or work harder to contain them. And bringing these issues into the full light of day may help with that, or at least convince them to crack down on bad actors they a currently allow to function with impunity.

It’s a good trend, but I still think it would behoove the admin of more reasonable instances to make it more obvious that there is a sizable and aggressive group of people with nearly unlimited (internet) power, and making it clear that they do not associate at all with those instances/individual practices.

There is a huge dearth of naming and shaming bad actors, and it’s going to reach a size where people won’t do their research as I did, but will assume that all of the fediverse is run by authoritarian Communists and (not) engage based on that.

And that wouldn’t be an unfair understanding, given who the creators of Lemmy are, who their disciples/mods are, and their influence across the platform.

Lemmy really runs the risk of being “left wing Truth Social” otherwise.

Thanks for illustrating that I was banned from not just one community I don’t participate in aside from upvoting, but several that I have never even visited. All for “Rule 4,” which as far as I can tell is spamming ads, which I have never done. I’ve tried to message the mods of those communities, but haven’t gotten any kind of response.

It’s really disappointing that this is how Lemmy seems to work. As a new user, I had to actively persevere through the .ml bullshit to understand that lemmy as a whole is not like that. But it’s almost impossible to be a progressive (but not full blown anti-western communist) on an awful lot of this platform.

It really does the other large instances a disservice that those mod/admin practices are so commonplace.

I know the answer is to defederate/block them, but I genuinely find the news and posts interesting, and .ml was one of the instances that I was first looking into, because I literally didn’t understand how the fediverse worked but kept hearing “just pick an instance, there no wrong choice since you have access to all the other instances.”

But even those posts about topics I am educated in and care about, it all just literally seems to be a vessel for a specific type of (dis/mis)information in the comments, which actively preys on the gullible and shuts out even moderately different views.

Edit: mobile formatting fix

Cool interrobang.

Don’t, G.

That specific email was when I knew my mom was irrevocably radicalized.

She wasn’t, and still isn’t, religious. But she was fucking convinced that Obama was literally the antichrist.

Not my claim.

And my understanding of the person you responded to is that China has a space station, and they are capable of travel to both the Moon and Mars.

You seemed surprised at that, so I went ahead and gave you a Wikipedia that’s all about China’s space program.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

Correct.

That position and sovereignty are not mutually opposed, depending on the view you take towards international law.

Fair enough.

I’m assuming the poster doesn’t speak English as a first language, so I’m hopeful it was a more innocent question than the racist dog whistle it seems like at first glance.

I can see why one might be curious about the economic comparisons between different geographic spaces with vast sizes, even though it’s almost impossible to really answer.

Some of the fastest growing economies are in Africa. Some analysts view it as having the potential to be a core of productivity not too far in the future, especially given its demographic and natural resources.

But it’s a very diverse place, being a continent with many countries, so answering your question is very difficult. Can you be any more specific?

Yes, the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials. I never disputed that lineage. Those nazi trials happened in Nuremberg, not The Hague, and before the ICC existed.

First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.

The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.

And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.

Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.

I mean… yes you do, since that’s a little bit how international law works? Countries who do not sign and ratify the Rome statute and then remain in there aren’t governed by the ICC in the same way.

You will see in the excerpt you quoted, the reason the ICC believes it has jurisdiction is because of events taking place in Palestine, which has taken part in the Rome Statute previously.

And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.

The problem with this, is that NATO is a defensive treaty, that requires countries to ask to join.

So this characterization of Russian foreign policy is, if true, just stupid. So fucking STUPID.

Quick edit to add: I’m not necessarily calling your assessment of Russian foreign policy stupid. I’m calling this foreign policy justification stupid.

It’s quite the evidence of an intense inferiority complex.

“Overstand?”

Then by the logic of modern capitalism, doesn’t Unity (and thus, modern gaming) need a hard reboot? It sounds like there is t enough competition in the market, and one company has become “too big to fail” without massive repercussions.

Alternatively, you mention another engine. I don’t know shit about the nuts and bolts of gaming: but if another engine exists, then it should take up space. And if Unity fails, then other games should have a stake in making sure they hire the right talent to keep their games going. Or they risk going under themselves.

deleted by creator