181
3
hmm i think i will (files.catbox.moe)
544
also apps (files.catbox.moe)
276
8
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

it’s a fake tweet

212
whippersnapper (lemmy.cafe)
12
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

he’s becoming self aware

title stolen from 13coveredinyou@twitter

6
yikes (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 1 month ago by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/privacy@lemmy.world

Stolen from @vmstan

More analysis from @wiredfire:

It’s nothing to do with [difficulties in using multiple platforms]. It’s to do with the massive backlash they got on Fedi for their CEO being all Trumpy and somewhat horrible right wing. So they’ve run away because they were made to feel unwelcome on account of us not letting their BS fly.

Original screenshot is of the bio of https://mastodon.social/@protonprivacy and wasn’t a post (that confused me for a sec).

672
17
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/news@lemmy.world

Posting this because no one else seems to want to, and it’s a discussion worth having outside of drama or personal conflicts. I’m undecided and can see both sides, but it’s important to address.

Potential benefits of a limit:

  • Frequent posters hold significant influence and could, in theory, push misinformation or propaganda (though I haven't seen evidence of this it’s a fair concern).
  • A community dominated by one or two voices might discourage new members from participating.
  • Encouraging quality over quantity could increase the value of individual posts.

Potential downsides of a limit:

  • Could reduce overall community engagement.
  • If set too low, it might discourage meaningful participation from well-intentioned members.
  • It could inadvertently encourage the (mis)use of alt accounts.

These are some pros/cons but certainly not all! I encourage more discussion below.

50
wyd in this situation (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 2 months ago by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
15
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Summary:

  • @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
  • there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
  • there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
  • !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
  • !news has no ponder.cat mods
  • from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
  • ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
  • Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that

Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.

Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.

I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:

  • at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
  • at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
  • avoid personal slapfights to get your way
  • avoid escalation directly to account termination threats

Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 229 points 3 months ago

Back in December, the instance hosting 196 (lemmy.blahaj.zone) announced that, as part of its mission as a trans-friendly space, harassment based on gender or neopronouns would remain prohibited—even if the user in question was suspected of being a troll. Users were asked to disengage, block, and report suspected trolling behavior rather than bring harassment into a community already vulnerable to that kind of bullying.

There was a small backlash to the policy from some users. This led to a number of “toe the line” posts that weren’t outright gender-based harassment but strongly signaled an intent to misgender or harass in the future. Blahaj admins promptly removed all offending comments during this wave of dissent.

Important to note: The majority of the Blahaj and 196 users supported the policy, upvoting and praising the admins for creating a safe space for trans individuals.

By January, the backlash had mostly subsided, and the trolls causing issues had moved on. However, 196 moderator @moss and their team remained unhappy with the policy. They cited “personal differences” and felt Blahaj admins had overstepped by removing comments themselves rather than allowing 196 mods to address users who openly expressed intent to harass others.

Yesterday, @moss and the 196 moderation team enacted a major decision without consulting the community. They locked !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone and instructed users to move to !196@lemmy.world.

This move was extremely unpopular. Many users strongly dislike lemmy.world for various reasons (a complicated topic better unpacked elsewhere). The announcement post was met with widespread backlash, and @moss eventually locked it. In response, a few users created a new community on Blahaj: !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone. The new community quickly grew in size and activity, with most users opting to stay on Blahaj rather than migrate to lemmy.world.

It’s clear @moss and the 196 moderators underestimated the community’s attachment to its home on Blahaj. By attempting to uproot the group without input, they alienated much of the community. As a result, most users have moved to the new Blahaj-hosted community, which has already become the more active space.

TL;DR:
@Moss and the 196 mod team tried to move the community to lemmy.world without consulting anyone. The decision was extremely unpopular, leading to backlash and the creation of a new Blahaj-hosted community that most users now prefer.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 132 points 3 months ago

keep repeating it and don’t stop. im already seeing tiktok users saying they aren’t coming back. and i think that’s a good response.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 120 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 141 points 9 months ago

it happens in movies because it happens in real life too. when in crisis, often there is sense of loss of control or autonomy. for most, something that can provide an outlet for such a frustration is one’s appearance. and, while men do too, women broadly tend to have the more intimate relationship with their hair. so: haircut (or hair dye, or both).

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 215 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So important that the memes get on top of this story and double down on this specific hypocrisy. Optically, this tragedy is perfect for the RNC to the point it could almost be staged except for the glaring weak spot that Republicans believe that the person who did this had every right to own a firearm. The memes need to absolutely rail at that chink in the armor and pretty much nothing else, otherwise this is nothing more than gained footing for MAGA.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 115 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

you think redneck homophobes in florida should have universal healthcare?

yeah. doy.

human rights are inherent, not earned.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 197 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

this shit (what the landlord did) should be illegal and prosecutable?

imagine renting farmland out to a farmer, waiting for them to plant and grow crops right up till before harvest, then try to pull a switch and up the rent because “🤓☝️the land is worth more now.”

like no shit the plants on the property add value. value that came directly from the tenant in hundreds of hours of labor and materials!!??!!

good on this tenant for getting the W on the situation. im sure for countless poor others the opposite has been true :(

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 113 points 1 year ago

probably someone on reddit seeking to engage with likeminded peers just a guess though

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 145 points 1 year ago

guy in interrogation room. sometimes they give you snacks in interrogation in order to maintain friendly relations.

joke is that the guy got a whole meal instead of just a small snack or soda so he must be really spilling some tea.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 116 points 1 year ago

this is exactly what henry ford wanted to happen i did a seance and checked in with him

view more: next ›

spujb

joined 1 year ago