You said, and I quote “Find a better way.” I don’t agree with your premise - this is the better way - but I gave you a straightforward, reasonable way to achieve something important to you… and now you’re saying that “This is a discussion of principle.”

You’ve just proven that it doesn’t take a moderator to turn a conversation into a bad joke - you can do it on your own.

It’s a discussion of principle.

This is a foreign concept?

It appears to be a foreign concept for you.

I don’t believe that it’s a fundamentally bad thing to converse in moderated spaces; you do. You say “giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing” like it’s a fact, indicating you believe this, but you’ve been given the tools to avoid giving others the power to moderate your conversation and you have chosen not to use them. This means that you are saying “I have chosen to do a thing that I believe is fundamentally bad.” Why would anyone trust such a person?

For that matter, is this even a discussion? People clearly don’t agree with you and you haven’t explained your reasoning. If a moderator’s actions are logged and visible to users, and users have the choice of engaging under the purview of a moderator or moving elsewhere, what’s the problem?

It is deeply bad that…

Why?

Yes, I know, trolls, etc…

In other words, “let me ignore valid arguments for why moderation is needed.”

But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke.

It doesn’t.

And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

In places where moderator’s actions are unlogged and they’re not accountable to the community, sure - and that’s true on mainstream social media. Here, moderators are performing a service for the benefit of the community.

Have you never heard the phrase “Trust, but verify?”

Find a better way.

This is the better way.

Then why are you doing that, and why aren’t you at least hosting your own instance?

Yes, I know, trolls etc. But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke. And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

Not just trolls - there’s much worse content out there, some of which can get you sent to jail in most (all?) jurisdictions.

And even ignoring that, many users like their communities to remain focused on a given topic. Moderation allows this to happen without requiring a vetting process prior to posting. Maybe you don’t want that, but most users do.

Find a better way.

Here’s an option: you can code a fork or client that automatically parses the modlog, finds comments and posts that have been removed, and makes them visible in your feed. You could even implement the ability to reply by hosting replies on a different instance or community.

For you and anyone who uses your fork, it’ll be as though they were never removed.

Do you have issues with the above approach?

As a user, you can:

• Review instance and community rules prior to participating
• Review the moderator logs to confirm that moderation activities have been in line with the rules
• If you notice a discrepancy, e.g., over-moderation, you can hold the mods accountable and draw attention to it or simply choose not to engage in that instance or community
• Host your own instance
• Create communities in an existing instance or your own instance

If you host your own instance and communities within that instance, then at that point, you have full control, right? Other instances can de-federate from yours.

stuck with the GPL forever

If you accept a patch and don’t have the ability to relicense it, you can remove it and re-license the new codebase. You can even re-implement changes made by the patch in many cases, whether those changes are bug fixes or new features.

If you re-implement the change, you do need to ensure this is done in a way that doesn’t cause it to become a derivative work, but it’s much easier if you have copyright to 99% of a work already and only need to re-implement 1% or so. If you’ve received substantial community contributions and the community is opposed to relicensing, it will be much harder to do so.

A clean room implementation - where the person rewriting the code doesn’t look at the original code, and is only given a description of the functionality - which can include a detailed description of the algorithm - is the most defensible way to perform such a rewrite and relicense, but it’s not the only option.

You should generally consult an attorney when relicensing and shouldn’t just do it casually. But a single patch certainly doesn’t mean you’re locked in forever.

16 GB of RAM, though? Is it even optimized for the Ryzen 9950X3D?

And a 4 TB SSD - not even necessarily NVME?

Doesn’t seem high powered to me.

It’s more likely that this is being done to either:

• Evade hiring restrictions
• Interview on someone else’s behalf

Apparently there’s a vulnerability with sending messages with images in them and “she” might be logging people’s IP addresses through that.

If the images are hosted on your instance, this wouldn’t be relevant. If they’re links to an image hosted somewhere, this is possible, but there’d be a lot of noise and not much value. To link accounts to IPs the URLs would themselves need to be different

I checked the urls to the images in my PMs and they’re all hosted on Lemmy.

Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

What if it was for a car?

I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.

Where did I contest your point?

The president won [the] popular vote

Only if you ignore the huge amounts of voter suppression. If you don’t, then he lost the popular vote and the electoral vote - netting 45.8% of the popular vote to Kamala’s 52.7%, and he earned at most (and probably less than) 252 electoral votes to Kamala’s 286.

If you’re in the US, automatic is fine. Manuals make up like 1 percent of new cars and maybe 4% of used cars here. It doesn’t hurt to know how to drive one, but it doesn’t benefit you much, either. I drove a manual once, but it was a rental in another country. I’ve never been faced with needing to - or even having the opportunity to - drive a manual in the US.

However, learning on a manual does make it easier to understand certain ways of how cars work, even on automatics (less so on CVTs), so if you like understanding things more, I recommend manual even in the US. You can still get that understanding driving automatics, though - just a bit more effort.

Outside the US, most places I know of manual is the default. If manuals make up even 30 percent or so of cars where you live, I strongly suggest learning to drive one.

I can’t guess where your interests lie

OP does say they have a boyfriend

Even with an HOA, you can still end up needing to pay tens of thousands for surprise repairs in the forms of special assessments, especially if the HOA is poorly managed.

Why specifically do you want to be a trans man online?

• Is it because you’re fetishizing the idea of being a trans man?
• Because you’re actually trans (aka an egg) and you just haven’t come to terms with it irl?
• Both?

I attended a 1-on-1 meeting that a billionaire scheduled with me but that they themselves did not attend.

If your recommend protein intake is 70 grams per day (meaning you weigh about 195 pounds / 87 kg) and you’re only getting 20 grams per day, then you are likely already experiencing health issues.

From https://www.verywellhealth.com/protein-deficiency-symptoms-8756264 you could expect to experience:

• Weakness and fatigue, meaning you’ll feel exhausted - mentally, physically, or both
• Skin, Hair, and Nail Problems
• Mood changes, including the development of mood disorders, such as depression
• Compromised immune system
• Slowed wound healing
• Decline in bone strength
• Fatty liver
• Weight loss due to your muscles and organs being broken down - but my understanding is this is mostly relevant if your overall caloric intake is quite low (starvation levels)
• Weight gain due to fluid retention or increased hunger

Not all of those are immediately noticeable.

However, I’m with the other commenter who said that they think it’s likely that you’re under-estimating your daily protein intake. What method did you use for tracking and calculating it?

It doesn’t read like AI to me, but their takeaways about copyright made me think the author had read an AI summary rather than the actual source material.

It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:

Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:

• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.

Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.