this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
54 points (93.5% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3248 readers
1 users here now
Lemmy.world Support
Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.
This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.
This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.
To open a support ticket
You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email [email protected] (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news 🐘
Outages 🔥
https://status.lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hmmm, should we universalize that argument? Say, nazis ruined free speech, no more free speech? Criminals ruined the 5th amendment and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, so now cops can beat confessions out of you?
You win today's Godwin.
X ruined Y, so lets take Y away from everyone because the small number of X ruined it.
Better?
It's a dumb argument. It would be like saying that one person had an elective abortion with a viable fetus, and therefore we need to ban all abortions. Despite the fact that it's a very, very rare occurrence, and can be handled in different way.
No, its more like "i own a library. I dont want people shouting in my library. Anyone shouting in my library will be kicked out"
Someone that shouts in a library is more than welcome to start their own library where shouting is allowed, even welcomed, encouraged or mandatory
Its not illegal to use a VPN nor is it illegal to use a VPN to access lemmy.world, nor will anyone hold lemmy.world accountable for people accessing it via a VPN.
Lemmy.world has chosen to block access via VPNs.
That is their choice.
Lets swap the metaphor around a bit.
Its not illegal to enter a library via a window.
I could build a staircase to the window of my hypothetical library, and use that as the main entrance.
I wouldnt get arrested. The people using it wouldnt get arrested. Everything would be fine, might even be a great selling point to get more business.
The reason people arent allowed to enter libraries via a window is because there is a perfectly good front door, and its likely people that continue to try and access a library via a window are probably up to no good.
Maybe they are there to burn books, deface books, or just steal the computers that have been running for the last 20 years without any maintenance. Or maybe they might plant extremely inappropriate content amongst other books, or even illegal content amongst other books. Or maybe they have an aversion to main entrances, cant get to a library during normal business hours and desperately need something new to read, or are worried the person at the front desk will recognise them.
Who knows. Could be innocent, could be excentric, could be nefarious.
Its easier to prevent people entering via the windows, have monitoring to ensure people dont enter via the windows, and have a general social norm of "someone trying to get through a window is bad, and should be reported to authorities to make sure they arent up to no good" and just have everyone use the front door.
Anyone that actually includes non-vpn access to something like lemmy.world in their threat model are hopefully smart enough to get a VPS with a clean IP address.
Because a VPN doesnt add any extra headers or data to the traffic. VPN traffic is often blocked by looking up the origin IP (ie the VPN exit node's public IP address) against a database of known malicious IP addresses. Thats it. Get a clean IP address, and move on with your life
This is wildly off-topic, but define "rare occurrence." Because I'm sure it's more common than you and I think.
Edit: I stand corrected.
First, pretty much every state in the US has banned elective abortion past the point of fetal viability, even the dark blue ones that have liberal Democratic supermajorities. That means that past 24-26 weeks--which is generally the point of fetal viability--an elective abortion is already illegal. That's six months for earliest viability. How many people do you think get up to seven months pregnant and say, "nope, changed my mind"? The answer is, almost none. The few people that get that far without wanting a baby are women that didn't realize they were pregnant because they never gained much weight, they had wildly irregular periods before pregnancy, and had spotting during pregnancy, etc. Almost all of the women that have abortions later than 13 weeks only have them because the fetus is not viable. 94% of all abortions are at 13 weeks or earlier. So right there, only 7% of abortions--which makes it at least uncommon--are even past 13 weeks, much less right up on the 24-week limit.
Anecdotally, my ex-wife had a later term (about 18-20 weeks) abortion when she was a teen. She didn't know she was pregnant because she wasn't gaining weight, and was still spotting. Her doctor told her that she had twins, that it was highly unlikely she would be able to carry to term without miscarrying, and it would be significantly detrimental to her health to try.
Thanks. I had the wrong definition of fetal viability, and what you say of course makes sense. I stand corrected.
Also, I'm sorry your wife had to go through that experience.
Ex-wife. From what she told me, the worst part was having to tell her mom that she'd gotten pregnant.
My current--hopefully final--wife has also had an abortion, and she too has zero regrets about it. IIRC that was a birth control failure with her 2nd husband.
I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago, when I first got real, grown-up adult health insurance, because I've known for years that I didn't want to pass my genes on. :)
None of that is relevant to my server. All I care about is that I host my own server, and that means I'm responsible for it. If you care so much you go host your own server.
There's nowhere in this statement that indicates that you're referring to your own server. The text of your argument is that you are in favor of restricting privacy rights because you don't like the way a limited number of people have misused privacy to post illegal material.
In case you missed that bit.
Correct, that is what I'm saying. When it comes to data that I host on my server, I am responsible for it, and my government would agree with that. Which is why again, I say if you do not like it, feel free to host your own server. That's the beauty of the fediverse, if you don't like the way one server hosts things then spin up one and do it your way.
Define "free speech":
Mass-shooters exercise mass-murder as their free speech, even though that style of free speech is illegal.
The denser the population, the more each expression deforms other's lives.
Tribal villages can just move elsewhere, to create space, but NYC can't.
Mass murder isn't free speech, because it directly infringes on the rights of other people. To wit, your freedom to swing your fists around in the air ends at my face. Expressions that do not cause direct harm, by their nature, are generally covered under 1A. Calls to commit genocide that don't rise to the level of incitement, for instance, are covered by free speech protections (e.g., nazis marching in the heavily Jewish city of Skokie, IL). Outright lies and yes, defamatory comments, are covered by 1A protections. (In the case of defamatory speech, the government has no course of action; Trump lost a suit brought by E. Gene Carrol for defamation, not a criminal prosecution by the gov't.) Child pornography is not covered by 1A protections, because child pornography can't be created without committing acts that are otherwise illegal. Generally speaking, when the gov't has a legitimate interest in controlling certain forms of speech that are likely to cause harm--such as incitement--principles of strict scrutiny apply; the laws restricting 1A rights are supposed to be as narrow as possible to achieve the stated goals. Prior restraint is also usually not a thing without being very, very narrowly crafted.
Generally, it's authoritarians and reactionaries that want to intentionally blur the lines between speech and actions.