Note that this account is meant to be specially prejudicial against instances, communities, users (even admins) who either don't seem to be acting in good faith or if they claim to do so while being inconsistent or applying a heavy dose of favoritism.
The determination is substance based and involves whether they are condoning harassment or making unevenly applied claims and accusations, not just downvotes.
This means I'm not ignoring them, just not even seeing them
Since OP won't make any effort to defend this, I will.
In these sort of cases, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the court to fine the company the $22 million to the company, award a more appropriate stipend to the victim that does not actively promote and reward with wealth gaps, pay the lawyers, and to then allow her to be the executor with what's left in regards to being able to be spent to prevent similar abuses from happening in the future, with the responsibility falling back to the judge if she does not want to be? She would then be limited in how she could spend that, but she could spend it however she wants for that purpose - create a political campaign, finance unions, etc.
You could just choose not to respond. If someone respectfully asks something, either answer or don't. The only stupid retort I found was yours to those sort of questions.
You made a point and failed to carry it home. Why even bother to post here? Just wanted people to tell you you are right? Wrong audience.
Just because there were ways to do it before does not mean they were as easy to use or as cheap as AI, and just because there are other ways to cheat doesn't whataboutism clear away any criticism of the most notoriously popular method.
Does a good parent place restrictions on what their child can and can't do? Yes. The thing about bad parents is that they are notoriously irresponsible. They would be the least likely to utilize such a feature.
What are you a proponent of, the Minority Report version of banning? Ironically enough, even without a ban this has meant I haven't even participated in their instance for anything, so not even that.
Are we play acting that not even mods and admins have alts in other instances now?
Is it surprising if they take a pleasure cruise shortcut after their donation drives? The Gaza flotilla ships were at least twice as big, involved more, and they also looked the part. These look like surfer dude sailboats on vacation.
Even symbolically these don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. I am not a ship connoisseur, but still...
You really aren't making a good case for yourself if you are trying to promote ban evasion. Were your critics right, and is your gig up now?
And no, this is just an alt, after experiencing some rather concerning double standards of enforcement in another instance as well as an harsh degree of escalation from said enforcement, this account represents a different approach on a platform that handles some things better than Lemmy's and avoids any presence on the aforementioned instance.
This moron, NATO knew that the first few months. Nobody would be taking Trump's US seriously if it wasn't for everything it had built up that's now tumbling down upon itself.
I wonder what tipped the balances. Was it the threat of Epstein prosecutions? Was it the threat that the oligarchy might be taken down a few places? Or was it just pure greed? Because it certainly wasn't out of ideals, feigning loyalty to bullshit populist grass roots movements was just the means to an end.
They know who they are, and it depends on what's involved. Even if the ban was clearly in bad faith, the tune changes when it's someone co-mingling in their circles, and I'll leave it at that since it would involve old Matrix conversations. If you haven't, that's good, although it's what ban happy behavior encourages. The only people whom bans like those works against are good faith participants.
They are definitely doing a lot of smoke screening against the actual complaints. Still doesn't stop OP from looking good when they call them out. I don't know about your claims, but I've definitely seen users be as manipulative as that long before even reddit was a thing.
I'd stick to calling the trolls out instead of implicating the powermod, though (even if it's just because they are using an impostor nick and you are citing it correctly). They seem to have done that to themselves through their actions.
Doesn't help that admins have at times decided to encourage alt'ing to bypass bans "because if they are good faith participants, they won't get banned again". The problem is the whole federated system means accommodating different standards.
As a proponent of any decent implementation of the idea, I'd just like to point out that if we could select our own moderators for communities, a lot of these alts and sock puppets would probably have been handled by the people I would have aggregated to the list instead of just waiting for the time zone or availability to roll over to the official ones. A lot of these are blatantly obvious.
You are talking about going against a cartel of oligopolies that have locked down the technology sector with the IP they control and who have cutthroat control over where the latest technology is deployed. What we at home can do is playact "It's back to the 90s!" and go back to the technology we had several decades ago, which is more viable than it sounds.
If they want to act like cartels with the greatest and latest, nothing is forcing people to use it. Unfortunately, the technological divide will still be there. Tech minimalism, go human, recycle old tech, we have a lot of crap we've disposed off over the years that would otherwise still run fine. To create competition, there needs to be the breeding grounds for it, and if that means having to do with what the lunar lander did, then do so and exercise that brain in the process too.
Devil's advocate, is it really that bad for someone who is a parent to be able to easily zone of their Linux distro for their children? And yeah, I get there are a number of methods to do this like locking down accounts, but something like this would have the potential of automating whom the rules apply to.
I'm sorry, I cannot understand your comment.