I prefer having this filter rather than not having it, mostly because of the systemic effects I explained.

That's also the case for me, in case that was not clear :)

I think some words are almost always meant to harm, and can be easily replace by more positive or neutral term.

I don't think it's that easy, because of the context. Should all usage of the n***** word by black people be prevented? Should all usage of w****/b**** words by queer/femmes folks in a sex-positive context be prevented? etc.. I agree with you using these words is most times inappropriate and we can find better words for that, however white male technologists have a long history of dictating how the software can be used (and who it's for) and i believe there's something wrong in that power dynamic in and of itself. It's not uncommon that measures of control introduced "to protect the oppressed" turn into serious popular repression.

Still, like i said i like this filter in practice, and it's part of the reason i'm here (no fascism policy). As a militant antifascist AFK, i need to reflect on this and ponder whether automatic censorship is ok in the name of antifascism: it seems pretty efficient so far, if only as a psychological barrier. And i strongly believe we should moderate speech and advertise why we consider certain words/concepts to be mental barriers, but i'm really bothered on an ethical level to just dismiss content without human interaction. Isn't that precisely what we critique in Youtube/Facebook/etc? I'm not exactly placing these examples on the same level as a slur filter though ;)

The devs explain here a clear intention to make this change difficult enough to prevent at least partially the migration of some communities they don’t want to support and/or give a platform to.

I'm happy it's becoming harder for neonazis to find a home online, however i'm not happy that this makes lemmy english-centric, and i'm not happy that honest discussion about some topics (including thoughtful criticism) will be made harder.

Related example: on another message board a few weeks back i couldn't post a message containing my criticism of "bitcoin" because bitcoin was part of the slur filter to filter out the crypto-capitalist clique... i understand and appreciate why it was put in place, but i felt really powerless as a user that a machine who lacks understanding of the context of me using this word, decided i had no right to post it. I appreciate strong moderation, but i don't trust machine to police/judge our activities.

Well it depends what type of "communism" we're talking about. Fascism has usually a pretty clear understanding: repression of political dissent, emphasis on a national feeling and a sense of unique destiny to destroy/conquer whoever disagrees, various forms of eugenism (in the sense of killing people because they're homosexual or handicapped), the cult of work as a duty to your homeland, as in some cases also strong racism (to my knowledge this is not a feature of italian fascism, but rather other forms of nazism/fascism).

So now, what is communism? According to marxists and anarchists, communism is the stateless, peaceful, egalitarian society. However, marxists believe an intermediary step is required to reach communism: the dictatorship of the proletariat, which has led to countless deaths and suffering. So if "dictatorship of the proletariat" is your definition of communism, then i would almost agree with you "communism" is just as bad as "fascism". However, there still are some differences:

• women's rights (and often gay rights) are faring well under marxism-leninism ; that is, women are equal in their right to be exploited by the State
• most leninist regimes, despite their atrocities, are not known for putting forward racial theories and committing genocides (although Stalin in the USSR had quite some genociding on his hands)

So no, it's not the same. And in any way, most people you will meet through life will talk about communism as the principle free and equal society. That is, the abolition of privileges (remember 1789?) and freedom and equality for all. In this anarchist understanding of communism, then really there's nothing wrong with communism.

Free association + Mutual aid + Solidarity against domination = <3 Short introduction to anarchism i wrote in another topic

Entirely agree. It's a very political problem. Not sure if it's an actual conspiracy, but around the same time P2P networks were emerging (Napster/Bittorrent), there was a strong push in the industry for asymmetric DSL (previously everyone had equal upload/download), GSM-based internet (fencing off open wifi by making it illegal in many places), and centralized services.

Ideally:

• HTML would natively support alternative URLs for a given piece of content, while keeping traditional href/src for backwards compatibility ; we can already do this with <picture> element, but that doesn't work with <a> tag for example ; also <picture> is intended for different formats not different protocols, so the browser may end up leaking metadata in unexpected ways
• browsers would support custom proxies/plugins per type of link (eg magnet: or ipfs:// URIs in <img> tag), because direct integration within the browser is a huge maintenance burden
• p2p networks like IPFS/DAT/Bittorrent would have a PubSub social replication mechanism, where one person/service may subscribe to content from another person/service and pin it automatically (i'm glad IPFS finally got remote pinning, but there's no subscription system yet)

In the video world, there's Peertube which is an interesting tradeoff:

• Webtorrent distribution of content with the Peertube server acting as tracker
• automatic social replication from allowlisted federated instances
• instance operators can choose not to advertise/serve specific pieces of content they don't like (moderation)

What remains to be seen is exactly how to deal with abuse while still providing good censorship-resilience. Still, i believe the same Peertube model could be applied to image hosting.

Please don't. The first can be fixed with p2p technology (as LBRY does), the second cannot ever be fixed by technology, because it's a socio-political problem. And in any case, a for-profit company like LBRY operating a Proof-Of-Work blockchain is going to fix neither. It's just another cryptoscam among many others.

I mean seriously, it's literally using Bittorrent. That's perfectly fine, but why add a blockchain on top of a perfectly foolproof technology? Ah yes, $$$$$

Games

I really appreciate emulators, but what i would really like to see is free-software, hackable reimplementations for really cool old-school multiplayer games:

• Trackmania
• (see FreeCS) Half-Life engine (CS 1.6, anyone?)
• Super Mario Kart
• Super Smash Bros

Why reimplementations not emulators? Because then you can extend the game and make new games from it! You're not stuck with a binary ROM dictating all the fun you should have.

Wow, so after all is said, the list is really long for me. I'll also try to take from other posts other ideas that interest me and put them here. Turns out it's too long for Lemmy (lol) so i'll post as subcomments of this one.