CynAq

You're right, aren't they already called communities? What's wrong with that?

The extreme profit oriented business culture of the US combined with the human nature of bandwagons make these sort of disgusting practices possible.

Corporations are justified, by default, in anything they can do to increase profit, and will do so until there's enough public backlash to negate the amount of profit that practice makes.

The public backlash is tied to the social momentum the idea has. Because profitability is the default idea to be promoted, you can't say something like "don't do this obviously profitable thing because it's bad for people" unless there's enough people around you who'll get on the bandwagon. If suddenly some influential person or a critical number of schmucks say the opposite, then everyone is defending the corporation's, not only the right, but the duty to be profitable.

It's an unpleasant way to live, really, but people are creatures of habit and won't easily go against the culture they grow up in.

I'd say it's exactly as productive as saying "It's no big deal if Meta joins the fediverse, It'll be fiiiiiine".

We should watch everything very carefully.

Maybe they're trying to make this ~~urban legend~~ hoax a reality.

Read this. You'll understand the issue a little better.

So you're ok with potentially killing mothers, who have established lives, loved ones, people to take care of and share a life with, through scaring doctors away from administering necessary procedures to prevent the cases of some mother-doctor pairs from killing some hypothetical fetuses which can be counted on the fingers of one hand annually anyway.

Again, you are missing the reality that most people, including pregnant women and doctors are human beings with compassion and morals, just like you and I.

What you are proposing is a moral high ground from a position of complete incompetence on a matter unrelated to you in any shape of form outside of a vague philosophical connection through shared humanity.

The worst part is, virtually nobody on the "fetal lives matter" side of the discussion, if it's fair to call it that, show the same amount of moral sensitivity when it comes to death penalty, sending 18 year olds to war and similar issues where governments take lethal action on the basis of our collective support through the same philosophical mechanism you propose as a means to control how doctors can use their means to administer healthcare.

I just preemptively blocked the community for my account. I'd recommend everyone do the same until, and if they prove to be a problem.
I think instead of calling for pre-blocks or defederation of entire instances, we have to be vigilant and keep a close eye on the discussions going on around us.

I'm saying this not because I'm an "enlightened centrist" living in a delusion of tolerance or a fascist in disguise. I am as left leaning, antifascist, and antiauthoritarian as they get. I'm just saying this as I know from experience that there's no real way to eliminate people with bigoted views from our communities other than on an individual basis.

Ban an entire instance, you'll still have to block the individuals if they come one by one to stir shit up on your turf. Just skip the first part and go for the individual communities and users. They will simply find each other and form groups, as instances or otherwise anyway.

I know it's not ideal, but there's no real way to prevent these fascist groups from forming anywhere there's a large enough number of people. We can only block our own interaction with them and form counter groups, and actively fight against their bigotry.

I believe this is the sad truth we all have to live with, at least for the time being, because I can't see defederation as an effective tool.

And with that comes the responsibility of what to do if the mother's life is in danger late in a pregnancy but not in a way exactly as defined as "allowed" in the legislation written by non-medical experts? Even medical experts can't preemptively imagine every possible scenario and write down what should be included in the list.

Here's something I'm sure you haven't thought of before when you formed your opinion on which abortions should be legal.

The issue is extremely complicated to think of in terms of prohibitions.

Read about all those recent incidences where women with clear danger to their lives couldn't receive necessary abortions because their clearly nonviable fetus had a heartbeat while they were bleeding internally.

That's what tying the legality of abortion to the legally defined status of a fetus does, because it's quite impossible to legally define viability in a way which accounts for every possible detail where things can go wrong.

When you leave it to doctors instead, they do the right thing for the vast majority of cases, because they actually do have morals, just like you and I.

The problem is with defining what "elective" is. Defining in legal terms, a "necessary abortion" is also equally difficult.

The best way to safeguard medical professionals against career, even freedom threatening legal battles, is to leave the discretion to medical boards who know ultimately better than anyone what they are dealing with.

This is why it's dangerous to meddle in something like this. We can't go on legislating depending on our personal morals and understanding of ethics. We can't legislate from a position which assumes medical professionals are profit driven, soulless devils who'd do wrong unless prevented from doing so by the strong hand of the general society through government intervention.

This same principle is valid in both gender affirming care -yes, for minors too- and for access to abortions.

I'm not in for the giveaway, I'm just supporting the random select suggestion since you mentioned the inherent problem with upvotes.

You can use something to randomly match users with a game. Maybe you can devise a way to use a random sample generator used to group people for randomized studies.

The problem here isn't talking to Meta or Meta making a federated platform.

Nobody can prevent Meta from doing that anyway.

The problem is the need to push against the insistence of Meta to keep these meetings off the record. It's against the entire philosophy of something like not only fediverse but FOSS in general.

If Meta wants good faith, they have to show it first.

Notice that in the email, Kev gives his guidance as to the matter. Do whatever the fuck you want as long as you put people first and make a product for the purpose of serving them.

This should be the attitude everyone should have first.

We will accept you as long as you're bringing value to us, not the other way round, got that Meta?

As long as any dev is taking this approach, Meta included, I'm supporting them. If someone is secretive about their intentions about a public service which is not a for profit endeavor inherently, I'll have a hard pass too.

I never meant you in particular meant this to be a finished work, in fact I thought you posted this in hopes of getting some constructive feedback rather than the blind adulation everyone showed here.

As far as I can see, nobody even bothered with thinking about what they are looking at and participating in the process of making it better, except that one person bringing up the balding dude silhouette.

I think it's on the right track as it is. Needs the improvements I mentioned, plus anything I can't see obviously, one person can't notice every detail ever.

As for help, I didn't offer any as I don't do vector art myself, so I wouldn't be able to solve the issues I mentioned, perhaps ironically.