flamingos

Most places on Lemmy will use Matrix as it's federated unlike Revolt. There's even a link to one for here in the sidebar (that I apparently wasn't a part of before).

lmao, I didn't pick up on that mascara was misspelt.

Okay. So again, what’s the problem? Everyone should be happy.

No one on lemmy.world will see anything Sag posts, ~ 1/3 of all Lemmy users. Not the end of the world, but it can be demotivating.

Humor me for a moment - if you go to a website, directly, do you have to abide by their terms of service?

No, a TOS is a contract, you have to agree to it to be subject to it.

Where are you getting the idea that I’m saying TOS shouldn’t be enforced? I’m not saying that, I’m disputing who it applies to.

You said, and I quote:

I just don’t think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

Remote user, i.e. someone who's account isn't on lemmy.world. Local accounts on lemmy.world should still be subject to the TOS.

Okay, well, they can still go there, it’s just that their content no longer federates to lemmy.world. I guess everyone should be happy?

It won't federate to anyone, it's the Group actor that forwards content to subscribers.

That’s not even close to equivalent.

I think it is actually. If posting to lemmy.world comm, who then forwards that content to comm subs, makes me a user of lemmy.world's service, then I don't see how I wouldn't be a user of Cloudfair's services in that case. I've still technically initiated an interaction with Cloudfair servers, even if indirectly.

If the ToS for dbzer0 included, say, something ridiculous, like “Don’t use the letter S”, and you used the letter S, would you posting here be a violation of the ToS, or not? Regardless of whether you think the ToS is reasonable.

Well no, I'm not a dbzer0 user so I don't think I'm subject to their TOS. If it was in the comm or instance rules, then I'd be violating those, but TOS is for users of the service.

If ToS aren’t going to be enforced, you may as well not have them.

Where are you getting the idea that I'm saying TOS shouldn't be enforced? I'm not saying that, I'm disputing who it applies to.

Can you post to Lemmy.world using an archive?

If not, the question seems of dubious relevance.

Federation between instances is like an archive in a state of flux. You can still access feddit.de content despite the service being down.

But going to Lemmy.world with an account isn’t making use of the service, so long as it’s not a .world account?

They didn't go to lemmy.world with an account? They went to https://lemm.ee/c/fediverse@lemmy.world with a lemm.ee account. For my comment to reach you, it has to go through Cloudfair as lemmy.world uses them for DDoS protection. Am I subject to Cloudfair's TOS?

But if no user from another instance is ever using any of the instances they post to, save for their own, how can an admin have the right to ban them?

It's perfectly within lemmy.world's remit to ban a user for whatever reasons they feel like, I just don't think banning a remote user for TOS violation is a good one.

… what does count as making use of the service, if not posting to the service’s comms?

Using lemmy.word to access content. Using https://feddit.uk/post/25339637 to view the content is making use of feddit.uk's services, using https://lemmy.world/post/26548121 is making use of lemmy.world's services. Would using an archive to access a lemmy.world post be making use of the service?

Is it impossible to make use of the service unless you’re a user signed up on the service?

I wouldn't say so, even going to lemmy.world without an account would be making use of the service in my mind.

If so, should it be regarded that admins have no authority to bar any user from another instance from the admin’s instance?

No? Community spaces can still have rules that govern themselves (that's why sidebars federate), it's just that terms of service are for people making use of the service.

Matelt changed it to Public after seeing my comment, so it federates now.

And I disagree that that counts as making use of the service. Lemmy also sends Webmentions, if someone with a world account posts a blog post from someone and world then sends a Webmention to that blog, does lemmy.world's TOS apply to the blogger? TOS applying over distributed systems is frankly impracticable.

I'm really not sure how the TOS apply given it opens with:

This Terms of Service applies to your access to and active use of https://lemmy.world/, it's API's and sub-domain services (ex alt GUIs)(we, us, our the website, Lemmy.World, or LW) as well as all other properties and services associated with Lemmy.World.

Sag wasn't accessing or making active use of lemmy.world itself. This would be like an email provider blocking a particular address from another service because the user of that address doesn't comply with a part of their TOS.

Can't believe she's messaging everyone but me, just look at !nicole@feddit.org and yet I'm still being ghosted 😭

What a wild thing to publish on International Women's Day. Almost like this "we don't talk about young men" stuff the media is pushing isn't about helping young men but telling women to shut up.

None of this is to deny the many inequalities faced by females in a patriarchal society.

"Faced by females". There's quite a bit of bioessentialism in this that attempts to essentially say violent men have no agency. Like I'm sorry, having a shitty childhood or high testosterone aren't excuses. The culture shift needed to help young men is to treat them like people, capable of feeling the full range of human emotions, and part of being a person is being responsible for your actions.

Also, no amount of women capitulating to reactionary rhetoric is going to bring about a culture shift that young men don't want, young men are just as responsible for making their lives better as everyone else. Yes, they need more support structures (we all do), but young men need to want to get better and I'm not sure a lot of them currently do.

Gonna? My fellow user of Linux, it's already happening.