How about 14 seconds?

Intellectual property laws are theft of human potential. Instead of focusing on actual progress, everyone is focused on how to get around patents. Incentivize innovation, not the opposite.

I think you misunderstood their comment? They’re saying the high number of active users coming from Reddit was too much for the computers to handle at the time, not that the Redditors themselves were scaring people away. The speed and downtime of the .ml instance at the time is what they are saying drove people to .world.

I remember world was a bit better at the time, but both instances were frequently struggling with performance after the third-party app ban.

If you don’t want to be called Nazis, then stop putting up with all the fascists in your instance. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist is definitely the mature stance to take when someone points out that your instance is harboring fascists.

The barrier of an application is enough to scare off most non-serious users. I used to favor open registration, but after making an account and participating on an instance with open registration vs closed, I found the closed registration shuts down a lot of bad actors and makes the instance a more pleasant community.

I’m not even advocating for rejecting any of the applications, just having questions to answer before joining seems to significantly cut down on the trolls.

No disadvantages? Idk, there is the whole disadvantage of .world being defederated from lemmygrad. :)

Why would you leave a passive-aggressive comment about hexbear when the user made a legitimate point about the influx of redditors overloading .ml servers during the exodus?

What a weird comment all around.

I’ll definitely keep FidelCatstro in my back pocket though.

I completely understand blocking or ignoring those who engage you in bad faith, but when someone disagrees with you and also engages in a discussion in good faith, you are merely silencing voices of dissent by blocking them.

How is that approach not creating an echo chamber? It seems hypocritical to label spaces that welcome good faith discourse “echo chambers” while creating your own.

I think you forgot to close your eyes and cover your ears before commenting.

“Nobody is winning.”

“Ukraine is winning, but nobody is winning.”

The people straying from the “echo chamber” aren’t the ones blocking others for dissent. Sounds like you’re projecting.

“Do your fucking dishes,” is my guess.

I love you and how you take the time to call out all of these comments.

Liberalism

China bad! Yellow Peril!

Look, the commentor knows how to Google, but not well.

Every media source is biased, some are just open about their biases while others like to hide theirs. Take the time to read with a critical eye instead of dismissing the source because some website told you they couldn’t be trusted.

There are plenty of examples of mainstream, Western sources publishing absolute garbage, they just have better optics.

You were called a liberal because of your support of liberal governments, making it related to the topic. The holier-than-thou tone of your response highlights your lack of education on the relevant topics. Seeing as you think no one else provided any value to the discussion and you knowingly chose to contribute nothing of your own (is coat-tail time vampire an established term?) Let’s try to salvage something out of this thread. Beyond the derisive tone of this first paragraph, everything beyond is provided as a measure toward engaging in a good-faith conversation.

Why were you called a liberal and why would a communist see this as a fault? To add some clarity before the quote, communists usually apply the term “liberal” to what people in the US refer to as “conservatives” and “liberals.” They are lumped together due to their mutual support of liberalism and neoliberalism. The following quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Section 2.4. It does not fully answer the above question, but it will begin to give some context. Any additional clarification can be gained by reading further into Marxist theory.

In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation—essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties—and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility—for Marx, the fact—that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. Accordingly, insisting on a regime of liberal rights encourages us to view each other in ways that undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of feudalism and religious prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the ideas of non-alienated labour and meaningful community.

The only empire is the US empire and the way they talk about themselves as an empire, they’re proud of it too. Yell one-word feel-good slogans at them like “CHANGE”, “FREEDOM”, or “DEMOCRACY” and all the citizens shout and cheer because that’s what they’ve always been told to do.

Try sitting during the pledge, the singing of the national anthem, or insulting the military. The US empire will have none of that. Truly the land of the free.

Yes, too much capitalist oppression has poisoned my general tolerance of apologia for this type of garbage.