Safe harbour equivalent rules should apply, no? That is, the platforms should not be held liable as long as the platform does not permit for illegal activities on the platform, offer proper reporting mechanism, and documented workflows to investigate + act against reported activity.
It feels like a slippery slope to arrest people on grounds of suspicion (until proven otherwise) of lack of moderation.
I like how OP calls out several stats to appeal to Lemmy’s overzealous privacy focus, but does not call out the reported fact that Republicans are increasingly paranoid about being tracked, whereas the Democrats stayed apathetic about it.
This article just shows that by and large, people don’t know what and why data are being collected, and unless they believe in the deep state conspiracy that’s being touted by the Republicans in the past several years by, they mostly don’t care.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wololo wololo
Technically, the words are adopted from Chinese (in this case both Traditional and Simplified are the same and have not diverged yet); but same meaning and reasoning, just different pronunciation.
Emojis used zero width joiner to combine multiple single code point emoji to a single combined emoji.
⛥ + ZWJ + ⬠ could form the combined character, and be rendered as desired.
I actually don’t know if/how the ad block people worked around it or if YouTube pulled back. The problem with DAI on podcast and in stream ads is that the ads aren’t always 1:05~1:35, the ad could be longer or shorter, then the next ad won’t necessarily start at the same time, and most definitely won’t end at the same time. So sponsor block won’t know precisely where the ads are, thereby making it much harder for a crowd sourced solution to accurately skip embedded ads. Hopefully they figured out a way, but as mentioned earlier, I don’t know what happened to that experiment.
The answer depends on how you’re serving your content. Based on what you’ve described about your setup, your content is likely served over HTTP through the secured tunnel. The tunnel acts like an encrypted VPN, which allows unencrypted content to be sent securely over the wire. This means although your web server is serving unencrypted content, it gets encrypted before it goes to Cloudflare, so no one along the path could snoop on it.
They were serving videos with ads spliced in, basically DAI in podcasting industry. I’m not sure how that experiment went, but if that’s how they’d serve the videos, downloaders will have ads embedded as well.
It’s not threatening anyone… I don’t believe I’ve seen anywhere that the mods say or imply that. Also before anyone complain about singling people out, no, if I share anything from a non-reputable source, it’s going to get deleted, regardless of the subject. It’s about the quality of the source; the objective is to create a community sharing good trustworthy sources to improve the overall quality of content appearing on the community.
Again, you’ve been invited by the mods to repost from a more reputable source. If there aren’t any, then perhaps it is not !news worthy.
Looks like a case where poorly sourced article getting removed, with invitation to repost with a more reputable source... so do so with a better source. Or is the underlying article itself leaning too much towards propaganda that there is no more reputable source? and if that is the case, then is it really !news worthy?
Can you elaborate further? If the intention is to obscure the information by federating anonymous information outwards, then no third party instance owners can observe the true usernames for vote manipulation from the same user across instances. If more instances deploy this kind of poisonous behaviour across the fediverse, then it becomes untenable for instance owners and community moderator to protect themselves, which in turn hurts the fediverse as a whole.
Edit: if you mean the vote percentage thing, that’s utterly useless. Vote amplification works both ways, a bot user doesn’t have to vote just down or just up. So knowing the percentage of the anonymous user’s previous behavior doesn’t support identifying vote manipulation. An alleged abuser can easily create thousands of account and sample random % of account to mass drive sentiment without having them all appear with similar percentages.
I don’t know how they manage their platform — I don’t use it, so it’s irrelevant for me personally — was this proven anywhere in a court of law?