It gets banned/blocked, or sued for noncompliance for allowing Australian users without age verification. They’ll play whack a mole for decades, just like they have been for P2P file sharing.
Like a lot of post-911 legislation, it’s anti-privacy surveillance disguised as a way to ‘protect the children’. It’s absolute shit and we should absolutely be taking measures to anonymize our open source social media platforms further.
There’s no editorial process, anyone can post anything (within the TOS).
A lot of people use it for personal vlogs and such. It might be easier to ask how it’s meaningfully different from something like tiktok that makes it not social media.
Lmao, the CIA fomenting violent revolution in their own country in order to install a pro-western dictator/monarch would be very on-brand, I will grant you that
No lol, we do not agree.
There are numerous examples of revolutionary change bringing better, more equitable systems of governance.
The only pattern I see is that the ones where the US is involved end up turning to shit.
Literally two comments ago you were saying this:
Most of the time when you destroy the system you get a much worse system.
Was the Shah good or bad? Is it important that what came before the Shah was a popular democratic system that the US destroyed? Is that destruction justified if it becomes a great vacationing spot for Americans?
You’re all over the place bud.
There isn’t a law that I’m aware of, but typically the ad needs to be un-skippable/seek-able, which means there will always be some indication to the video player of what the user can skip or fast forward through.
That doesn’t mean Google couldn’t just make fast forwarding/seeking a premium feature, but they’d lose a lot of user appeal if they did so they probably wouldn’t do that
Who are you responding to, bud?
Meanwhile billionaires are still laughing at the poors fighting each other thinking one job is better than other or villifying entire professions still.
Landlording isn’t a job.
It was always an exciting day in band when we got to turn the vibrophone resonator fans on.
Lol “You can just tell”
Libs just so badly want to be left alone
Liberals delude themselves as being different simply because they “support” liberation politics but they are simply helpless against the system that forces them to support fascist policies
Complain more on the same internet invented mostly by the country you hate?
Lmao checkmate, tankie
My current biggest concern is climate crisis
You can obsessed with that issue all you want…
“I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada and doesn’t have any socials”
If i’m understanding the last graph right, it’s showing the total number of active monthly users per instance’s top communities, filtered by the overall top 100 communities?
So if an instance has activity spread out over many niche communities, that activity isn’t represented on this graph?
I would think having a diversity of smaller communities is more in-line with the spirit of the fediverse, I’m not sure of the value in slicing the data in this way.
One is mocking the belief of a group by portraying it as ridiculous, the other is a bigoted portrayal of a group as homicidal on the basis of their belief.
The meme isn’t offensive toward ‘religious fruitcakes’ (the use of this word is kinda ironic but unrelated), it’s actively bigoted and Islamophobic. Socsa was presumably defending the meme by saying they enjoy offending all religions and not just islam, and I was pointing out that the post wasn’t simply offensive, it was bigoted.
Edit: responding here because this post was removed on my home instance for Islamophobia.
you’re still coming across to me as just saying “it’s never ok to criticize bad Islamic practices, it’s automatically bigotry.
It isn’t a critique, it is portraying Muslims as fanatical murderers.
I assume you find the practice of brutally murdering people for the act of drawing a picture of a fictional character to be bad. How would you phrase a legitimate criticism of the practice without being bigoted?
In the same way that you would ‘critique’ Christianity, which justifies acts of terror such as bombing PFP clinics with Genesis 9:6, or Romans 13.
Extremists in Christianity are not seen as representative of the faith, but they are for Islam.
It is the attribution of that extremism to being a part of ‘muhammad’s fanbase’ that is islamaphobic, not pointing to an example of the extremism itself.
A member of a group committing murder and citing that group’s beliefs isn’t a justification for casually implying that members of that group are murderous, even if it’s true is the most limited sense of the word.
Especially when that group is itself subject to extreme violence and genocide on the basis of their membership.
I am quite sure it’s you who is confused.
They wouldn’t go after the users, just the domains and the host servers. Similar to shutting down TPB or other tracker site, they’d go after the site host. True enough, there wouldn’t necessarily be risk to users of those sites, but if they escalated things enough (like if an authoritarian got elected and was so motivated…) they could start taking more severe punitive action. Who knows, they could amend the regulation to go after the users if they wanted - it’s a dangerous precedent either way. Especially when the intent is to ‘protect children’, there’s no limit to how far they might take it in the future.
I’m not familiar with Australian law but I don’t think this really applies. Most countries with internet censorship laws don’t have any guaranteed right to uncensored information. At least in the US, they don’t have ‘censorship’ per se, but they do sometimes ‘block’ an offending site by seizing domains/servers/equipment, and they can force search engines de-list them if the offense is severe enough. If the server is beyond their reach, they can prosecute or sanction the person hosting the site to pressure them into compliance. I can imagine a social media site who refuses to age verify and that hosts pornographic content (cough cough lemmy cough cough) be pursued like a CSAM site.
That doesn’t mean they can’t throw their weight around and bully self-hosters/small-time hobbyists and scare them into compliance. Any western country enacting a law like this could pressure their western trade partners to comply with enforcement efforts. And anyway it isn’t necessarily about the practicality of enforcing the law, so much as giving prosecutors a long leash to make a lot of noise and scare small-time hobbyists out of hosting non compliant sites. Most people can’t afford the headache, even if it isn’t enforceable where they live.