Just another redditfugee. Maybe I’ll infodump a little more about me later… depends on how things develop here.
Speculating:
Restricting posting from accounts that don’t meet some adjustable criteria. Like account age, comment count, prior moderation action, average comment length (upvote quota maybe not, because not all instances use it)
Automatic hash comparison of uploaded images with database of registered illegal content.
“Unnamed iStock photo model” is the best answer I managed to arrive at.
Let me rephrase the question:
Who is this actress? I feel I have seen her before, but I can’t recall where and am lost for a name to google after.
Autistic mind here: Reading yours is giving me a headache. It’s like debugging a minecraft mod after patch day. Please reset aggression level to zero and run a malware scan.
Yup, can’t get any more shitposty than this.
No problem, it’s nice to have a level-headed exchange amidst an ongoing tornado of sewage :)
So, I can try to empathize with either side (mods and users) for each of the two quotes, and there might be scenarios where one is completely right and one is wrong. But as an outsider to the kind of debates where these quotes are commonly used, I simply don’t have the cultural understanding to help much with answering your question. Sorry.
Drawing the arch back to my initial statement: There are several levels of escalation present between utilising famous people quotes to make a general point and trying to dodge around community rules by veiling direct threats to a specified (inferred from context) group. I am of the opinion that the guillotine-comment I replied to is definitely stepping over the line and only remains standing, because right now additional enforcement of rules is (probably) not going to improve the weather situation mentioned above.
I had to look up what that even is, because I haven’t encountered that one before. (me not being US-American)
I cannot make a call on a reference to a quote brought forth on an unspecified subject without context.
In regards to JFK - yes that would count as advocating violence in a very generalised sense. But without context, again, I am not able to make a call, whether a ban on someone making the quote is justified or not. In general, moderation policy also falls under freedom of expression. Consequently, freedom of speech is not a claimable right against non-governmental agents. It’s a thing that a lot of people seem to selectively overlook when advocating for what would actually be better described as “Anarchy of speech”.
Is that an “implied” death threat?
It’s not. Where are you going with this argument?
Where I moderate, even implied death threats are a zero-warnings bannable offense.
(User named ‘pointy_end’ enters the chat)
Ah… the endless plight of the Katanaplonkers…
Listen: The more you defend the Katana, the more fun it is to troll you by pretending anyone actually cares.
It’s a sharp metal stick, alright. Stick 'em with the pointy end.
Only when the food asks to be hugged. …which it usually does. :P
What’s a normie? I don’t think I have seen one yet. /j
Why wouldn’t you hug the garbage, Mr. Zoidberg?
Actually a Moodpost. Only the username is a little sus.
You’re supposed to take a SVG from it, not BMP it all over the floor. :P
It’s a shitpost. Humor is optional.
Neither namedropping nor virtue signalling nor spreading misinformation is okay.