lmmarsano
@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 2 days ago:
You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!
Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use em dashes
—as you suggested before. Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey+.. Apologies. - Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 2 days ago:
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
-first -second -third
looks obviously bad whereas
- first - second - third
looks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
- Comment on Seriously, it was all the rage back when I joined my first instance. 2 days ago:
clever
You use that word…
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 2 days ago:
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 2 days ago:
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 2 days ago:
-Why there are pyramids in Egypt?
-Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.
how to write lists
markdown - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.renders to > - Why there are pyramids in Egypt? > - Because Brits couldn’t moved them to British Museum.Markdown guide is in the toolbar (?⃝) alongside a button for lists.
- Comment on Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny 3 days ago:
This is a sentiment often repeated by manosphere influencers and there’s no actual tangible evidence it exists and I think that’s the real issue.
This is why I feel there is such a disconnect. I just have to open TikTok to see this, so if researchers are not finding evidence then I’m very curious how that’s possible. Heck, you just need to look at the same masculinity influencer content they are talking about to see it, because it’s not just them making shit up from nothing - they will often use clips of misandrist women to get their point across. So they basically find the evidence for you.
Why has no one here said “links”?
People here just talk in circles instead of providing concrete support.
- Comment on I throw hands (grabbing my soup) 4 days ago:
I see lots of people on the left type “punch a Nazi” online
“punch a Nazi” reads better than a more realistic “throw a feeble, limp-wristed nudge that hardly registers at a nazi”
- Comment on Apple to Australians: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps 5 days ago:
Apple to
Australianseveryone: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Appsfix’d
- Comment on Meta rolled back protections. Now hate is surging. 1 week ago:
There are speech police in the real world. Workplaces don’t allow you to use slurs or to harass your co-workers.
That “speech police” traces to the government in the form of labor laws & regulations in the remit of the EEOC, eg, Title 7 of Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers didn’t conceive of such workplaces policies on their own to invite lawsuits & put targets on their backs.
These laws do not apply to social media as a communication platform. Offensive expression doesn’t deny equal access/opportunities to platform resources they are under any legal obligation to provide. Should we put much confidence in social media companies voluntarily assuming unnecessary obligations just because?
It never made sense.
- Comment on Meta rolled back protections. Now hate is surging. 1 week ago:
Do we really like people, though?
- Comment on Meta rolled back protections. Now hate is surging. 1 week ago:
That’s hilarious. 👍
- Comment on Meta rolled back protections. Now hate is surging. 1 week ago:
Nah, and cool opinion.
As someone else wrote, why should put much confidence in “some giant/evil megacorp”? They’re not a philanthropic organization & they’re not real authorities. We can expect them to act in their own interest.
If content is truly illegal or harmful, then the real authorities should handle it. Simply taking down that content doesn’t help real authorities or address credible threats. If it’s not illegal or harmful, then we can block or ignore.
People already curate their information offline. It seems reasonable to expect the same online.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
Wrong, brah.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
What does that have to do with non-violent protesters?
Did the violent attacks by police & police dogs make the Birmingham campaign a violent protest?
- Comment on *pat pat pat* 1 week ago:
It’s a chick: they just waddle, play with hay, and do flappies while waiting for their parents to occasionally feed them. Albatross chicks are huge.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent?
From the article
Perhaps most obviously, violent protests necessarily exclude people who abhor and fear bloodshed, whereas peaceful protesters maintain the moral high ground.
Chenoweth points out that nonviolent protests also have fewer physical barriers to participation. You do not need to be fit and healthy to engage in a strike, whereas violent campaigns tend to lean on the support of physically fit young men. And while many forms of nonviolent protests also carry serious risks – just think of China’s response in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are generally easier to discuss openly, which means that news of their occurrence can reach a wider audience. Violent movements, on the other hand, require a supply of weapons, and tend to rely on more secretive underground operations that might struggle to reach the general population.
Violent protests seems to mean a violent campaign of armed, planned attacks.
I doubt that would include unplanned outbreaks of violence from people not organized for that purpose.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 week ago:
P.C. this is article about the four mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes.
Which states
Clashes break out as police try to disperse the crowds and eight demonstrators are killed.
Police killing protesters makes a violent movement?
They’re not exactly an armed group of combatants coordinating attacks.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field.
Research.
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
Research?
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
Do your standards measure up to that?
- Comment on *pat pat pat* 1 week ago:
Watch conservationists weigh & feed an underweight chick (not yet fledged, not too happy).
- Comment on YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content. Videos are allowed if "freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk" 1 week ago:
Maybe you’re right: is there verification?
Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA.
TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language.
Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn’t exclusively mean content removal, though they’re doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.)
Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they’re chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it’s unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that’s contorting language for the sake of avoid idiotic restrictions.
- Comment on Alternatively 1 week ago:
Does it beat carrying these & wearing them in all orifices at all times?
- Comment on Luv Me Chips, 'ate Seagulls... 1 week ago:
I love these guys. Just look at them
- shoplift & demolish a bag of chips
- shoplift a sandwich
- hover over a sightseer to snatch a bite of ice cream
- wait from a regular spot to swipe from a pedestrian.
- Comment on The current system of online advertising has been ruled illegal 1 week ago:
To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something.
Thanks to dumbass EU laws fussing over nonproblems like (check notes) targeted advertising. Really? I voluntarily give out information to an ad-supported service I don’t pay for, they turn around & use this to try to show me more relevant ads, and I’m supposed to pretend the internet was ever private & shit my pants over this? While I can understand safeguards from identity theft, cookies aren’t that, I don’t understand how this concern ever blew up.
Before those laws, those cookie banners didn’t exist & I was happy not clicking them. I was under no illusion that online privacy exists with free services running on ad revenue that can track online activity and try to harvest voluntary information that’s mostly worthless to me. Free shit in exchange for mostly worthless information & ads I ignore seems like an obvious bargain, but some hypochondriacs had wind everyone into a frenzy to bitch & moan about it.
- Comment on YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content. Videos are allowed if "freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk" 1 week ago:
Do people still have to say unalive?
Censorship is goddamn stupid. They should just tag content & let people decide what to filter.
- Comment on Just started a community for those who wish to move away from Lemmy 2 weeks ago:
Features
Nice things about PieFed:
- Written in a common programming language that many developers understand and which has a bright future ahead of it. Python, of course! This will enable more contributions from a wider range of people than if it was made with Erlang, Ruby, Rust or PHP, for example.
- Constructed in a simple and straightforward manner that new contributors can come to grips with quickly. No fancy algorithms, special design patterns, fragile build process, or front-end framework. Just Flask with sprinklings of vanilla JS and htmx.
- Keep third party dependencies to an absolute minimum, to make server administration easier. Python + database (PostgreSQL) and you’re good to go! Redis optional.
- Consume few resources, to make it cheap to run. Many examples of federated software are bloated Rube Goldberg machines that require hefty servers and serious server administration skills, making money a constant problem. PieFed instances will be small and nimble.
- Emphasise trust, safety and happiness, drawing inspiration from the Mastodon Covenant.
- Built to last using tried and true technology that will still work decades from now.
Differences between Lemmy and PieFed
- Comments with -10 score are collapsed by default.
- Communities are organized into topics. See piefed.social/topics.
- Image-heavy communities can have a tiled/masonry view, like piefed.social/c/pics@lemmy.world
- People who get downvoted a lot end up with a ‘low reputation’ indicator next to their name. You’ll know it when you see it.
- Hide all posts based on keyword filters.
- Keyboard shortcuts.
- Upvotes in meme communities do not add to reputation.
- Better UI design (somewhat subjective!)
- Improved hotness ranking algorithm (subjective)
- Voting is private.
- See also features for healthy communities.
- Each community has it’s own wiki.
Mastodon Covenant & “safe spaces” are overmoderated trash. Features for healthy communities consist of Reddity moderation tactics.
Heavy handed moderation shit is the main reason I left Reddit, so no thanks, & fuck that.
- Comment on Hell 2 weeks ago:
Or maybe your written communication is weak.
- Comment on Hell 2 weeks ago:
I told them if they have a Gmail account, just use the + addressing feature, otherwise, just create a Gmail account.
If they couldn’t get a login reset sent to their email, then that’s broken. If they have to create a new email account just for you, that’s bullshit, too.
- Comment on lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month 3 weeks ago:
That’s a pleasant idea: best ways on going about that?
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 3 weeks ago:
Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
The law doesn’t magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open.
If discussion from the public is closed, then it’s no longer social media.
ban people who share false information
Banning people doesn’t stop falsehoods. It’s a broken solution promoting a false assurance.
Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed.
Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible
Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want.
Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren’t claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 3 weeks ago:
That it’s irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn’t a foolish endeavor. We don’t get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online? Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it’s irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.
There’s also the intractable problem of settling the truth. Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth? Infallible authorities don’t exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored. While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.
Social media isn’t a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff. It’s a communication platform open to the public.
Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people’s guard with assurances no one can deliver, it’s better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solutions, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.