Draconic NEO

Maybe one of the forks or backend replacements could implement an option using it to make it compliant. I wouldn’t go with the OP’s solution since privacy is non-existent on Lemmy, but just blocking interaction seems like it would be enough to make it compliant, and prevent the harassment issues mentioned, I made an issue which addresses this in the Lemmy Github, it proposes a new feature rather than changing the existing blocks because it’s good to have mutes and blocks at the same time.

Unfortunately Lemmy isn’t like that and does not follow activitypub spec in that regard, in their current form the block doesn’t seem to do that at all and simply hides the blocked user from the blocking user as if the blocked user didn’t exist. There are no checks on interactions.

Also if you’re wondering how it works with Mastodon, Lemmy basically ignores Mastodon’s blocking system and freely allows interraction with Mastodon accounts in the thread even if they blocked the user replying, and also the community actor.

Yup this happened a lot on Reddit. As much as people complain about the newer two way blocking system on Reddit this type of harassment disappeared basically overnight when that rolled out. It largely was a good thing because for every user who was legitimately being abused by it, there were a lot who were benefiting from it by stopping harassment from others.

Now Lemmy can implement anything but nothing could ever prevent blocked/muted user to create another account in order to continue harassment.

Not a great argument because the same could also apply to community and site bans.

I think that having more tools to fight harassment is ultimately a good thing, are these tools perfect? Of course not, but they are still better than having nothing.

I think the only way to prevent such issue would be a system which would require to prove identity in some way in order to create a single account. But this is completely against the openness of a federated network.

Indeed it is, plus it doesn’t stop those malicious enough to commit a felony just to harass someone but that is neither here nor there, this discussion is about protective measures that can be done before ban evasion.

A good two way blocking system should mainly focus on preventing interaction from the blocked user (The specs of Activitypub mention interraction, as opposed to viewing), even if they don’t hide it, the interactions from the blocked user wouldn’t be federated as if they were a banned user.

I don’t think that blocking people from seeing posts really makes sense since they can just log out to see them, it’s all public. So I don’t really feel like hiding content from them is very useful since they can view it without an account. What is really needed is a way to restrict users from interacting, I made an issue addressing this it would be treated as a kind of profile ban, similar to community bans but for individual users but even when banned people can still view and read, like they always could before.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Fediverse is public. It’s a space specifically built on sharing.

You’re thinking about it wrong, a good blocking system doesn’t need to hide the content but rather block interaction from the offending user, like a softer form of a ban, but only for that specific user. They can still see all content from the user but they just aren’t allowed to interact anymore. Could they bypass it with alt accounts? Yes but they can also bypass bans as well using that same method, so it’s not a good argument against something like that.

Ubuntu, because snaps break shit and don’t work right a lot of the time, also they left people hanging with 32 bit support which isn’t great (for being a Legacy OS for weak computers it’s not a great look for them, or all the Linux distros that followed them).

There were a lot of problems with Fedora and CentOS, none of them as bad as Ubuntu though. Most were either instability or software availability due to lacking RPM versions of the software I needed.

Arch itself hasn’t given me many problems but it is ideologically problematic for a lot of reasons (mainly the elitism) and it is also a rolling release which isn’t great if you don’t like being a guinea pig and getting software before all the bugs have been ironed out.

It’s not actually unstable, more accurately it’s tested and verified as much as Debian stable, meaning it’s fine for desktop use but I wouldn’t use it for a server or critical system I plan on running 24/7 without interruption, both since it may have bugs that develop after long term use and gets more frequent updates which will be missed and render it out of date quickly if it’s running constantly.

There’s quite a few instances like that that aren’t self-isolated prestigious hellholes. Here’s a list:

• lemmy.blahaj.zone - LGBTQ themed instance
• pricefield.org - LGBTQ themed instance based on “Life is Strange” franchise
• Reddthat.com - A general purpose instance
• Lemmy.one - A small general purpose instance ⚠️ Warning, They aren’t maintained well and have gone down for months ⚠️

From what I can see the biggest things these instances have in common with Beehaw is that they support LGBTQ and they have downvotes disabled. So they’re not really that similar, closest one is blahaj.

That’s probably the reason why instances like lemmy.blahaj.zone, pricefield.org, and reddthat.com chose to disable them. They aren’t constructive and more importantly they lead to people using them instead of reporting, which is really bad when it comes to enforcing rule violations.

You should report them as well, downvoting doesn’t do anything to accelerate them being moderated, but reporting definitely does.

I’ve also seen Mint, though it is much less common.

Most of the Laptops I see with Linux are Ubuntu, some Ubuntu based distro like Tuxedo, Pop_OS, or Linux mint, and very Rarely Fedora (I’m not sure, but I think I saw one ship with Fedora).

Basically HURD is GNU’s attempt at creating their own functioning Kernel as an alternative to the Linux or other UNIX kernels, as their own separate thing. Though development on it is very slow, so slow some might even consider it a dead project, though it is still going last time I HURD (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Canonical’s changes to apt could be considered malicious in and of themselves because it installs from a source you didn’t request for, sure seems malicious to me.

Then it’s your choice to comply, call their bluff, or do whatever you want. I’ve seen people who doxxed the DMCA sender and made threats towards the sending agent (the hoster was Russian).

Though best course of action would be to comply or ignore it, don’t do what that guy did, best to keep quiet than to stir up trouble.

Outright refusal or ignoring it does come with the risk of litigation (threats can accelerate it or lead to prosecution) assuming you’re within their jurisdiction.

I hope this means we’ll finally get activation methods that patch windows itself rather than playing along with their key system. Obviously it can be done since Windows AME has activation Functions completely removed yet it will never try to deactivate itself.

That’s overkill, with a rooted phone you can simply freeze (might be able to freeze it with ADB as well) or delete the Play store (it’s the Play Store where this Malware lives). GMS and Account Manager will work just fine without the Play store.

Or, like the other person said you can just disable Play Protect.

Not really, they just go by if the game isn’t selling well, or rather isn’t selling well enough for them, obviously they have to be careful not to do it too aggressively otherwise otherwise they’ll come off as being greedy or whiny about poor sales, which isn’t a good look on any dev (especially if it’s not actually related to piracy, then it hurts their argument).

They’ve just been careful enough to only whip out the crybaby arguments when it’ll work in their favor and seem enough like piracy, as opposed to doing it too much or at the wrong time and seeming salty about low sales (to be fair that’s exactly what’s happening, but people think they know more about who buys vs who pirates, rather than who buys vs who doesn’t).