Hmmm, I honestly thought this was going to explore the topic of people that are in the closet about their gender identity. Or maybe, plural people. I find this video more confusing than anything.

I think the way you describe it is perhaps too abstract for me to understand the points you’re making.

I find this passage rather distressing however “Pronouns reference the framework you expect someone to use to process your words”. I find that language scary sounding. It feels like specifying someone’s pronouns is forcing an ideology or status on someone and I just don’t think that’s true at all.

I also don’t think saying gender has “dedicated pronouns” is really accurate. Neopronouns exist and they still confer meaning to the person so I don’t think it’s a defined set. Different languages also have different pronoun systems which complicate creating a specific set.

I find the third argument kind of odd. I think that displaying pronouns in general has the same effect you’re describing without the need for different pronouns in different spaces. The same thing is true for things like a role bot or other tools to allow people to display their pronouns.

Unsurprisingly, coming back on an alt to call moderators incompetent is going to be reason for a ban.

If you want to actually discuss a ban, use support@beehaw.org with your account name.

The answer is yes.

The DMA (Digital Markets Act) has clauses that force big companies that are considered “gatekeepers” to allow interoperability with other services.

Images aren’t federated through ActivityPub so I don’t really see how deleting media is supposed to work.

Yes, they are. Every instance downloads everyone’s images for a “cached” version that is currently never used. This is what makes this problem especially insidious and straight up dangerous in cases like CSAM.

It’s a basic curl command, that shouldn’t be “arcane” if you’re setting up a server.

This is the equivalent of saying that any instance admin needs to know how to use curl while most people have never used a commandline. Not only that but you need machine access to know the api key which I would wager instance admins do not necessarily have.

I think this is the result of not prioritising work that makes moderation possible by non-technically inclined people and it is genuinely a failure of the system.

The priorities of development on Lemmy are decided by developers and the people who are not are simply pushed away. Most community leaders and moderators are not developers. The mental gymnastics to justify this lack of tooling is tiring.

They can, if they read the manual. Mods can’t, but instance admins can.

Yes. If you use arcane commands using the docs that are in a pull request that is not yet merged. This is not accessible to many instance admins and it is only “technically supported” which is the worst kind of support from my point of view.

In what way are those better? Don’t they still suffer from the privacy problems that come with federation?

Yes, the issue is that Lemmy does not even attempt to allow you to delete the image. There is no control for the user to do this. It’s literally not possible.

I think this is a pretty clear example of what I mean when I say that my work was never valued.

I did do work that was non-code - I labeled tons of issues, closed duplicates and those which had already been fixed.

I did try to write code contributions (here and here). One of which was rejected based on purely aesthetic preferences and whose follow-up PR was made dormant forever afterwards.

I tried to help and contribute in the ways I could - apparently this work is just “negativity and complaints”.

But are my priorities not my own? Why is this such an affront that I choose what I think is important? Would you like it if I did the same to you, demanded that you change your priorities to do what I want you to do? What if there are thousands of other people asking you the same thing?

When you accept donations and grants for Lemmy’s development and when you work with other people, I think it is normal and good to think about priorities in a more collaborative fashion. I cannot write rust code and many other people cannot do that. When their issues are left ignored, dismissed and repeatedly told that they have no input towards Lemmy’s direction - people tend to not want to work with you because they feel that their work is pointless.

Why make an issue if developers admit to not reading them and not changing priorities? Why help towards a collective goal if everyone is just working on their own personal thing? As someone who is not good at writing code - it just feels like shit. My work felt entirely pointless because there was no way for my effort to amount to anything I wanted. Only people who can write code can actually influence the Lemmy project.

I understand feeling burned out but I tried contributing, I tried making things better and all I was met with was “I will not change my priorities” or “I do not think it is valuable to try to bring direction in the Lemmy project” or straight up dismissal or silence. If what you wanted all this time was for you to work on your own thing with no outside input, well, all I can say is you’ve done good work to make that happen.

I don’t think there’s anything left for me to tell you.

To put so much demands on so few people, entitled to their free labor while contributing nothing back, is a terrible thing to do to a person.

I don’t know how you managed to do this in one thread but I’ll leave these two contradictions here:

• Lemmy devs claim to both “work full time” on the project because of donations and NLNet grants so sublinks could never reach parity in a reasonable timeframe
• Lemmy devs claim that Lemmy is all a labour of love and that asking for a change in leadership and priorities is just “entitled”

Like, I’m not going to deny that entitlement in open source is a thing - it is a thing and it is awful.

However, people are giving you their time, effort and money - you keep dismissing that and doubling down on erasing this work.

I mean, unless you want to tell me how I’m acting entitled to your work despite spending countless hours trying to support my community, spending hours sorting through issues that Lemmy has to label them, spending countless hours advocating for people to make issues and for change in the Lemmy project.

And after all that, trying to have any input on prioritising moderation was met with : (paraphrasing) “I will not change my priorities”, “I think you’re exagerating moderation issues, they work fine” and plain out refusing to acknowledge lolicon pornography as CSAM, refusing to acknowledge my request to put moderators in Lemmy’s matrix channels despite obvious problems during weekend.

Seriously, I kinda expected better from you. I have no trust in Lemmy’s leadership and your response here just examplifies that.

How do I put this? If this is how you respond to criticism, and that’s what you’ve clearly shown repeatedly to do, then you should not be in any leadership position.

You do not apologize even when you admit to be wrong, you blame others instead of taking responsibilities for anything that was said here. It’s entirely a dismissive response. You might not have noticed but people do not feel valued at all when they speak to Lemmy’s developers. Their input is dismissed, they are told to make issues that you do not care for and when they ask for something to be better prioritized, you effectively tell them to fuck off. You make people feel that their time and effort towards Lemmy is worthless.

With the way you’ve acted, you have pushed back people from making issues, from contributing in code or otherwise, from wanting to host Lemmy and wanting to be associated with the project. Sincerely, all I can hope at this point is for Lemmy to be forked by better people or to be forgotten about.

That’s a really hard question for me. It’s mostly a feeling more than a science so it becomes a bit hard to lay it down rationally and I know that doing that will result in weird inconsistencies but if I had to define it, it’s probably these three things.

1. The influence of the author or vibe

I find myself thinking that if I associate a particular piece of art as the vision of a single person rather than a collective work, I tend to be more critical of that art or product. Rationally speaking, I know Kagi is made by more than one person and I know the same to be true of Brave but the fact that I strongly associate both to, in my view, very concrete people whose ideology is very clearly shown in the product, it becomes very hard for me to dissociate the product from supporting that person. Of course, if the vibe of the product or art is off, I just don’t want to indulge with it - it’s essentially an instant turn off. Sometimes it’s just a little thing but it lives rent free in my mind.

2. The timeframe

If the person that has an influence is dead, well, I don’t have a feeling of contribution to something bad and I might overlook that dislike for the author.

3. The need

If I don’t need it and I don’t vibe with the author, well, I won’t buy it. There’s better things out there. On the other hand, if I have no option but to use that product, I might swallow my pride.

This actually reminds me of my favourite Pablo Picasso quote. (Note: I don’t really know anything about Picasso, so take that with a grain of salt)

In the New York Times in 1969 (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1969/07/21/90114401.html?pageNumber=6), when asked about the moon landing, he said “It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don’t care”.

It’s okay, kinda dreading the next school semester.

Otherwise, I’m trying to work on radcare.ca, my wiki project to make lists of local orgs doing good work.

I don’t know if money would really help with things not feeling like a slog to be honest. I mean, put in another context, do you feel that your workplace is more rewarding because they pay you? For me personally, it doesn’t really. I think it’d be nice to do more community-oriented events though.

I remember hearing this story a long time ago, It’s still so shocking that this happened.

Beehaw has enough to run without any additional donations for the next two years at the current costs so the finances of that seems well enough.

That said, I don’t feel comfortable spending money donated to Beehaw for things non-Beehaw related.

As for expanding in other services… Well, we already have enough trouble with Lemmy, I would not want to add more moderation hurdles personally.

I’m not sure if the Admins are paid, but it would be good to have paid admins, who also help post unique content too.

None of the admins have profited financially from donations meant for Beehaw. You can see this per the expenses on OpenCollective.

While I think it could be nice, we don’t have nearly enough to provide anyone a salary.

Or a meetup event to meet other Beehaw users (here in australia of course)

But the emus will get our lunch :(

This is just enlightened centrism. No. Nobody needs to defend the harms done by technology.

We can accept the harm if the good is worth it - we have no need to defend it.

LLMs can work without the harm.

It makes sense to make technology better by reducing the harm they cause when it is possible to do so.