To be very clear, I personally think that if you’re a fascist or a fascist sympathizer, then you should not be afforded any rights under the law.
This is a very, very troubling stance. Imagine, for a moment, that some unnamed, but generally orange-hued person was president and the law of the land was that fascists and fascist sympathizers were not afforded any rights under the law. Holy hell.
Do you really hold this view, or are you just being dramatic?
I don't disagree.
How does "that's not how this works" sound like whining? I can't tell if you're just not reading anything, or if you are desperately trying to have a different conversation with me than the one I'm having.
You are indeed very wise, fuckfuckmyfuckingass.
I only commented so I could type out your username haha.
I might end up leaving-- more for the ban stuff than the blocking piracy stuff-- but that's wholly beside the point when it comes to whether copyright law works like people are suggesting. It doesn't. The LW admins aren't going to be unexpectedly served papers for a lawsuit. They're going to get a boilerplate email with information on a claim of copyright infringement and they're going to remove the content without question and that will be the end of it.
Like I said, "just leave if you don't like it" has nothing to do with the point I'm making.
They're unbanning them from a sitewide ban and then immediately banning them from the lemmyworld community.
Do you think discussing piracy is illegal?
Precisely nowhere-- I have seen that quote get people banned for advocating violence, and I think that's pretty crazy; I semi-randomly ask people who moderate this question. I promise there's no gotcha here.
What about a "Four Boxes" reference?
Is this true? I understood the lemmy moderation capabilities that any post, even non-local ones, could be removed from an instance, and any user, even non-local ones, could be banned from a community or the entire instance.
Is this not the case?
This rebuttal you keep falling back on makes no sense. What do you think it's refuting?
My opinion is that a good indication that LLMs are groundbreaking is that it takes considerable research to understand why they give the output they give. And that research could be for just one prediction of one word.
I'm not trying to kid anyone. It was a simple question. I assume your reluctance to answer is because you agree that simply discussing piracy isn't illegal.
So, absent some evidence that the communities in question ignored their own rules against links to infringing content, do you think it was appropriate to block them? Keep in mind, that if this did exist, and it was clear that the rule was just there for lip service but unenforced, the admin would have a pretty good rationale for blocking the communities-- however, I'd still prefer that the blocking be after dialog had happened in an attempt to resolve the situation.