Disclaimer: Fuck the rich and please consider reading 1 paragraph before you go to comments to explain how I am a bootlicker. Thank you ٩(•͈ ꇴ •͈)و ̑̑❀

For context, I generally report all calls to violence, no matter who the “victim” is, whether they are a public figure or an anonymous user. I didn’t even register that the person I was “defending” was rich—I’m just aware that calls to violence are against most instances’ terms of service (due to legal threats). Genuinely sorry seahorse! I wish you just had something in your instance sidebar or even spoke to me instead of jumping to ban and “lib” insults!

Unverifiable information you will have to take my word for (per community rules)

Apologized to seahorse and got:

My own personal curiosities only adjacently related

Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t this a bit of an abuse of federation? This is the same admin that pulled the move with the doxxing of Nick Fuentes. By banning users for reporting content that may violate our local instance rules, seahorse is making our local instances harder to moderate for our admins. (Honestly I respect the commitment to the running a very open and uncensored instance, but until Lemmy has the option to only report to local admins versus local & federated authorities, this may not be the best strategy?)

Anyway, this is pretty interesting. I’m honestly not too pressed about this (mostly I will miss [email protected]) and curious what yall think. :)

  • Franklin
    3•2 days ago

    Violence should only be used against billionaires. Moreover, I think any site or gathering place is in its rights to have that within its rules.

    However, violence must be maintained as a clear alternative because peaceful protest and political action only when backed by that credible threat. It should also only be used when it is clear the other avenues are not sufficient.

    And if we remove that from all gathering places, we have kneecapped our ability to stand against tyranny when we need it.