The developers do not control who to defederate from.

Duh.

You don’t need to be on a populated instance

You can just as easily access content from a small instance

Which instance do you think has the majority of the content/users…

If you guessed the same one that I’m criticizing for censoring me, you’d be correct.

How exactly is it that you imagine the Lemmy developers would even enforce such a CoC?

Ideally you would enforce these policies collectively by de-federating an instance, “that’s the beauty of a decentralized system”. The problem thus far with Lemmy is how terribly it has failed this goal. Too many are nonchalant about letting autocracy fly no problem. Meanwhile the .world instance, which suffers from this problem of absolutism, is where most of the sub members flock. There’s such a tiny user base here (probably because of the tendency for staff to smother the part about social media that’s most important: inclusivity of ideas and perspectives) that I’m sort of on the fence about leaving entirely if the only populated ones are essentially closed off to me.

You better believe I’m going to criticize this terrible system. The idea of creating a place for voices, except they’re all the same voices, is a remarkable failure.

Don’t buy it, sorry. What would be the point of applying a set of ethics to one group of people involved with a project and not another group of people involved with that same project? That doc addresses users, admins, moderators, and developers.

Edit: It literally says this in the same Code of Conduct section:

<Moderation These are the policies for upholding our community’s standards of conduct

I didn’t ask.

I highly doubt developers would be working with a different ethical set than instance staff. That makes 0 sense. What would be the point of making the software inclusive if all of the instances can just ignore it and exclude?

The alternative is forcing every community to abide my the same policies regardless of what they want to build

They literally do this. Or at least, are supposed to do this. https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html

We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic. Please avoid using overtly sexual aliases or other nicknames that might detract from a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all.

I don’t think the statement “you could create a community where you just ban everyone from the community that you dislike” is compatible with a ‘welcoming environment for all’.

as long as they don’t go against server rules.

That’s the thing though, it’s in direct opposition to Lemmy’s code of conduct, not to mention it’s completely off putting to be so blasé about infringements on such an inalienable concept as free speech.

Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.

There’s not enough users on this platform for that to be a viable option. It should also be no wonder why it’s dying.

There’s something about the response: “there’s nobody stopping us from being tyrants” that doesn’t sit well with me…

It should be pretty clear when I say loaded terminology.

genocidal

This is not an accusation to throw around lightly. If it was, we could say that Palestinians were once genocidal, for instance, while they were targeting Jews with violent campaigns. As terrible as it is, urban combat is going to produce unintended casualties. It’s an extremely complicated, tangled mess to uncover genocidal intent amid an active war.

colonial

The Ottoman Empire (yeah, this was so long ago that those were still around) collapsed, the British Protectorate sanctioned the country of Israel, land titles were sold to the JNF, the Palestinians besieged Jerusalem in a bid to starve all of its Jewish inhabitants to death, and Plan Dalet was spawned to rid neighboring villages of potential combatants during an active war with a stated goal of allowing anyone non-hostile to remain. Doesn’t sound very colonial to me, especially given that there was Jewish owned territory in the region, long established before this conflict, and there were no other Jewish countries.

ethnostate

Israel allowed Palestinian refugees to return. The surrounding Arab nations didn’t and don’t. What else is there to say?

This site’s mods have very quickly turned into Reddit mods

I legitimately thought this at one point, and it quickly developed into a conflicting feeling. That being the reason I left reddit - the march towards enshittification that most recently resulted in third party API lockout - started to seem less egregious to me as Lemmy’s top instance condones just as much censorship.

This means that most communities I visit are rooted in .world, and stifle free discourse. It’s extremely discouraging, even being that I was free to leave the instance and join another one.

I’ll never understand why people have completely made up their mind on this issue and discard all nuance. Everyone should know by now how much disinformation encircles this debacle. There’s only two primary sources here for 99% of the information that gets reported- Hamas and the IDF.

I’ve also seen far too many people retrospectively hold modern Israel accountable for actions that occurred 80-120 years ago. This was long enough back that there were still Empires and colonies in existence.

deleted by creator

If you fill a sentence with enough loaded terminology I hear it makes it more true

Edit: If you downvote a sentence enough I heard it makes it less true

Had to leave the .world instance because of biased moderators censoring my opinions and admins not giving a shit. If not for Lemmy having a system in place for dealing with ineffective staff I would’ve left this platform already.

Edit: Never seen so many people rush in to defend a dictatorship. Sickening to be honest.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

That is what I’m asserting I am stating it as fact that is objective.

You’ve already made your opinion clear.

Aside from your own personal anecdotal opinion about how much you found the movie to be easy to follow do you have anything to refute my statement?

Already been over this in another comment where I explained why I thought Nolan’s use of these devices fit for Oppenheimer, this “conversation” was over a while ago. And best of all, Oppenheimer won an academy award for best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing- basically any criteria associated with your “critiques”. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can defer to much better film critics than either of us.

Please look up the definitions to the $10 words you’re using in your $1 sentences.

Cute.

The success of the movie is completely irrelevant in context to this discussion.

What? I bet you gave no thought to this sentence before you stated it. Of course it matters to this discussion. The entire rhetoric coming from both of you revolves around the alleged failures of the film’s methodology.

Just because you found it easy to follow along personally doesn’t mean that the person that you’re responding to is incorrect in this assessment of the movie.

I just explained the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and I’m not going to waste my time explaining how it applies to a claim of “bad storytelling” techniques again.

You’re just going to have to accept the fact that opinions are not accurate measurements of the efficacy of a methodology.