I believe “copyright free” in this case doesn’t mean not protected by copyright, but rather that it was missing attribution, so they could not contact the original creator.

Anything you create is automatically protected by copyright, whether you put a “© copygirl” or something to that effect on it or not. To use someone else’s work, you either need to get permission from the author directly, or the work has to be available under a license that says you’re allowed to (typically comes with some requirements or restrictions). One can also release a work under public domain, but that isn’t legally possible in some countries. There’s also some exceptions like fair use but that’s another thing.

1. There is the --download-sections option. Looking at it, you might want to use --download-sections "*0:00-1:00".
2. I briefly checked with --list-thumbnails and it doesn’t look like YouTube offers any square ones, so I would look into using ImageMagick to edit the image with a command. I doubt yt-dlp allows you to do any sort of image manipulation out of the box.

So that’s where it was hiding, not on the user page itself. Thanks!

I use uBlock Origin + vaft from TwitchAdSolutions, which is currently working pretty well for me. I’ve had some issues before, and every now and then the stream can freeze up when an ad is played. But it’s so much better than having to endure even a second of those mind-rotting ads.

This thinking is hateful and dangerous.

Are there trans women who have previously experimented with being a femboy? Definitely.
Are there femboys that for one reason or another are actually trans but in denial? I’m sure they exist.

Is every femboy an egg? Hell no. There’s plenty that are happy with their gender identity. In fact, thanks to them being able to be in touch with their feminine side, they probably know pretty well if they feel like a man or a woman. Don’t push femboys to transition, but be supportive if they want to explore the possibility.

At the moment, upvotes and downvotes, while not used that way by many people, is more about what others will see, rather than what content you like. It’s more like a community moderating and rating effort. Upvotes make posts more visible, by pushing them further up in what’s currently popular. Downvotes do the opposite, and in my personal opinion, should be reserved for posts that don’t fit the community they were posted in, spam, or things that break rules – typically the same reason why you would (and should) report a post. They are not “agree” and “disagree” buttons. Topics you disagree with can still spark interesting conversations.

Using the same mechanic, voting, to tell an algorithm whether similar posts should have higher visibility on your own feed, would be incompatible with this existing system. Posts that get a quick reaction or emotion out of you are even further encouraged, while things you simply don’t want to see (but aren’t necessarily “bad”) get punished heavily.

This system works through subscribing to communities you are interested in and actively participating in improving the health of those communities, rather than passively consuming content. That takes some effort, yes.

All in all I think this proposed system is not compatible with Lemmy, and maybe not even a good idea.

Looks like they’ll be harvesting your data if you follow anyone from Threads, maybe even injecting ads. Unsure what happens to the data of people that get followed by a Threads user. A large part of the fediverse is here precisely because they want to escape corporate meddling, data-hoarding, advertising and other anti-user malpractices. There’s a number of people talking about this, here’s a recent post that highlights some of the things from their TOS.

A personal instance generally doesn’t have a big reach, unless people actively follow the person who’s posting the doxxing information.* The fediverse may not be a good way to spread personal information of others, throwing up an instance like that is not much different than throwing up a website or forum.

There’s two things I can think of you can do: Contact the company that hosts the website to take it down – I’m unsure about how you go about this, but I’m sure you can find out more about that. And to report the instance to other instance admins to get it blacklisted, perhaps get it on a block list, limiting its reach and thus effectiveness. Get in contact with big instance admins, they likely have chatrooms you could join, and they might be able to help with the other step as well.

*edit: In the case of Lemmy, I suppose it would be people following a community, rather than a user directly. If moderators or admins act on the posted informated and delete it, the deletion will federate as well and any legitimate instance will automatically delete the content on their servers as well. This would also be true for Mastodon and such. If not, the above applies.

It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, … and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, …

When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it’s just kind of disrespectful to be like “well you could just pay for the service, you know?”. Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets.

I think you’re wrong. Downvotes are literally meant to be to provide a community powered mechanism to push irrelevant content into out of view, as per the community’s purpose. They are not going to be used as part of an algorithm to push more relevant content to you specifically. Of course, that’s not how a lot of people end up using them, so whether it’s an effective mechanism is another question.

Meanwhile, I’m on an instance that doesn’t federate downvotes, so they don’t affect ranking here, maybe for the better?

Shonk.

From what I know, F-Droid compiles apps from source so you can be sure that the code you’re running is actually made from the source code that it claims to be built from. On most other platforms, the developers could be uploading malicious programs that actually have the code changed from what’s shared online as its source code. Then add the fact that other developers can and do look at the code, and what changes are made from version to version.

I guess the core of the disagreement is that one side values safety higher while the other does expression? It could be argued that moderation can take care of anyone stepping over the line. People can be unwelcome creeps regardless of what they’re into, who would be attracted to other dedicated communities. I imagine someone could have the same concerns you do for similar reasons, when it comes to consensual non-consent roleplay. Interestingly enough, this actually is temporarily restricted on lemmynsfw, which could be because an appropriate moderation policy has not yet been agreed upon.

There used to be this service called Flattr, and it’s still around, but I’m honestly not sure how it works anymore. The way it used to work is you set a monthly amount you’re willing to contribute, you get to specify which projects to support, either one time, or recurring, and then your contribution is split up between the projects you chose to support.

I don’t know if this is an ideal system, because some creators might end up staying unsupported even though people are using their creations, others end up reminding their audience constantly to use the service and support them, so they end up with more than a similar creator not reminding their audience.

In the end, I think the best thing for all creators would would be universal basic income. Everyone is taken care of such they can survive and pay for necessities, and then they can just create stuff for others to enjoy, for free. (Oh, the humanity!) No trying to convince people to share part of their hard-earned money just for basic survival.

But whether it’s technically legal is exactly what does or doesn’t make it CSAM. “Looking like” is going to be highly subjective, and I don’t understand how the admins of the other instance are supposed to handle reports, other than to verify whether or not it actually is the case or not.

Are petite looking people not supposed to make explicit content while dressing up cute? Should a trans man not share explicit pictures of himself, because he might look like an underage boy? Do we stop at porn that gives the appearance of someone being young? What about incest or ageplay? Like, what if you or someone else was made sufficiently uncomfortable by some other kind of porn? How do you decide what is and isn’t okay? How do you avoid bias? What would you be telling a model when they ask why you removed their content?

Apologies for going on with this when I’m sure you’re already sick of dealing with this. I had just felt like some of the points I brought up (like in my original reply) were entirely overlooked. Putting effort into an (attempted) thought-out reply doesn’t mean I get to receive a response I was hoping for, but I was at least hoping for something you hadn’t already said elsewhere.

The reason I brought up emotion in my reply was because I’ve felt that the lemmynsfw admins have been able to explain their decision quite reasonably and seemed to be open to conversation, wheras Ada was set on one goal and upon finding disagreement, wasn’t in the right mindset to continue a constructive conversation. Which, to be fair, due to the nature of the content, is understandable.

If the content that the Blahaj Lemmy admins are concerned about are limited to certain communities, and part of the issue is the concentration of content in said communities in the first place (at least, as I speculated in my original reply), then I don’t quite understand why blocking these communities only isn’t something that was considered, rather than defederating the entire instance. I do respect Blahaj Lemmy’s decision not to want to host such content. Or is there some technical limitation that I’m not aware of?

I thought we already drew that line: 18 years of age, able to consent, and consenting. For context: I looked at this article where it is said Shauna Rae is 22 years old, however due to a condition her growth was stunted. I don’t think we should tell her not to date or do explicit things with her partner, when she finds one. It’s her body, and she is an adult. Similar to others with growth related conditions, such as dwarfism, or simply people who look petite even after they’ve come of age, who also get thrown under the bus regularly.

Let’s actually go that extra step and pretend she did make sexually explicit content. Now what? It immediately feels very wrong. Put that aside. I’m guessing most people are going to be worried about those with certain urges getting their rocks off…? (Honestly, not sure what to call them here, I was already unfamiliar with the term “CSAM”, so I’ll just leave it at that.) Now there’s content that’s legal and hasn’t harmed a child. That seems … better than the alternative?

I don’t think a person with unhealthy sexual urges gets to choose whether they have these urges or not. Demonizing them to the degree that we are, leads to most of them not being able to get the help they need. If it can’t be done by other means such as therapy, or therapy is not available, an outlet might help. And whether that’s “questionable” but legal porn, roleplaying, or other content or activities involving consenting adults that seems to tick the right boxes, … that’s up to them, not us. Again, miles better than the alternative, even if the immediate reaction is to be disgusted.

It’s an incredibly delicate problem. I’d say the right approach would be to do more scientific studies, but I imagine not many have or will be done because of the societal taboo. It’s also very iffy trying to search for existing research on this matter on the internet, and even if I could find some, I don’t have the expertise to know how scientifically sound it is.

In fact, in writing this and continuously re-reading my comment, I keep feeling like the points I’m making are scarily close to those of an apologist, or worse, someone who wants to normalize the sexualization of minors. I want to make it clear that I’m 100% against this. But I’m also against shaming the bodies of adults, telling them what they can’t and can’t do, because it makes me feel uncomfortable. (And I want to note that this is not meant to be an argument relating to the thread as a whole, as it would not want to tell the admins to host content I hypothesized in this post.)

I think both instance admins have a valid stance on the matter. lemmynsfw appears to take reports very seriously and if necessary does age verification of questionable posts, something that likely takes a lot of time and effort. Blahaj Lemmy doesn’t like the idea of a community that’s dedicated to “adults that look or dress child-like”. While I understand the immediate (and perhaps somewhat reactionary) concern that might raise, is this concern based in fact, or in emotion?

Personally I’m in the camp of “let consenting adults do adult things”, whether that involves fetishes that are typically thought as gross, dressing up in clothes or doing activities typically associated with younger ages, or simply having a body that appears underage to a the average viewer. As the lemmynsfw admin mentioned, such persons have the right to lust and be lusted after, too. That’s why, as a society, we decided to draw the line at 18 years old, right?

I believe the concern is not that such content is not supposed to exist or be shared, but rather that it’s collected within a community. And I think the assumption here is that it makes it easy for “certain people” to find this content. But if it is in fact legal, and well moderated, then is there a problem? I don’t believe there is evidence that seeing such content could change your sexual preferences. On the other hand, saying such communities should not exist could send the wrong message, along the lines of “this is weird and should not exist”, which might be what was meant with “body shaming”.

I’m trying to make sense of the situation here and possibly try to deescalate things, as I do believe lemmynsfw approach to moderation otherwise appears to be very much compatible with Blahaj Lemmy. Is there a potential future where this decision is reconsidered? Would there be some sort of middle-ground that admins from both instances could meet and come to an understanding?

No. The quick-ESC feature would require JavaScript to function, but the rest of the website should display regardless. It’s just that nowadays people use frameworks that require JavaScript to build pretty websites and forget about people who like to disable it by default for privacy reasons and more.

Ah okay that’s less problematic. But could it still cause problems if a rogue moderator decides to be trouble for the instance admins?