You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
I still can't find a reason to say it is censorship or sneaky. Isnt the point that it highlights the sources? In which case it isn't really hiding it. And if you decide you don't like it then just leave and go elsewhere. I don't really see a reason why a creator of something has a requirement to be apolitical or make their feelings known. People complain a lot about .ml and lemmy's creator. Never understood why, nobody is forcing you to participate and stay instead of going elsewhere - and I say that as somebody who was on .ml during the exodus then saw everyone defederating.
I guess i very much see it as creative freedom, it isn't doing anything malicious and my understanding is that it does expose these blocks to the user when encountered?
Here's a question: how many users do you think are aware of this? Were you aware of this before the post? If the answer to those is not very high and/or no, it's not being forward with what it's doing. If the creator sees it as a feature users would like, and not trying to be sneaky, why wouldn't they proudly display it?
I don't use piefed so no, of course I didn't know or have seen it. And it doesn't need to be malicious, i would have zero issues morally in suppressing or warning about links to stormfront or infowars and would think nothing of it - the line that somebody draws for themselves is personal and it seems the person making piefed has decided what they think is appropriate for them and their userbase.
Exactly my point. Let it be personal. I don't understand why you would do this without a toggle and without being clear to users.
I don't care that you don't use Piefed. If you've seen it before and didn't know about it, you're in the same position as most users. This wasn't advertised.
Also, you only said Stormfront or Infowars (now a The Onion site). If it was only extreme right stuff that'd be one thing (still bad if it's not made clear, in my opinion). It isn't though. It also includes some less radical right stuff, but also some left stuff. If he's supporting the status quo by hiding Israel genocide information from users, that's bad, right?
It's a piece of software that should be designed to facilitate what the user wants, not what the creator thinks. It should be made in a way that's easy for users to add or change the block list. It isn't. The only option is to fork it, which is possible, so he isn't stopping this, but purposefully chose to make this not clear so people won't. It's an attempt at thought control by being hidden and sneaking it in. If he wanted it to be a choice, again, it'd be a toggle. It is a choice through forking, so he hid it.
Err... what? That wasn't my point at all, you just took the words and decided to say something totally different. I'm talking about the line one draws in what is seen as obvious, objective or morally responsible. Which is exactly what you then go to totally misconstrue here:
I made no comment on the filter list in this part. I said it as my own opinion on what I see as morally correct, not them. I made the comment as a set-up to the next part of the comment; I would think nothing of filtering those two items out as way of demonstrating that few people would object to them being blacklisted as hateful sites of no useful substance. The entire point was to demonstrate that my moral compass in that regard is less controversial yet ultimately it is the same concept - the developer chose to filter what they likely think is hateful or fake, they just have a different idea of what that covers.
(And thank you so much for the "UMMM ACKCHULLY" on Infowars. I'm well aware of the situation with it but it was clearly done as a way to pick an obvious website that few would have cared about blocking).
Aww, I'm sorry for offering up information that was entirely relevant to the question that you asked me:
I know you apparently don't care about answers to questions you ask but I'll make it clearer for you - Why would I be aware of the features of a piece of software I don't use???
Yup. But that's up to them. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Absolutely could not disagree more. You do not get to decide on their behalf what they produce - it is no difference in that sense than creating art, or writing a book or running a website. What the creator puts out is up to them - you don't like it then you stop using it or you change it. Would allowing more user control over stuff like that be preferable to me? Yes. Would it make it more popular? Probably. Can we or should we force or pressure them? No. It is entirely their choice, you have no right to try force their hand to make it more palatable to your sensibilities. They create it that way because that is what they think is best. You can question that choice, you can hold that choice against them, you can attempt to change their mind, ask to re-think it, object to it, submit your own changes to it with justification, do whatever you want but implying that they have some kind of obligation to anyone but themselves to make them do what you think is best is absurd.
Aah yes, genius-level thought manipulation and level 100 sneak achieved by *checks notes* leaving the list in a plain text format in a publicly accessible repository, fully indexed, copied & replicated online &offline and integrated right into the most popular AI models. What a galaxy-brained master of subterfuge.
It isn't hard-baked into the code. Instance owners can adjust it as needed in the software they want to run and the community they wish to create. If this is such a moral injustice then I'm sure we are going to see a fork of this with filtering removed and the original one will fade into irrelevance...
This is such a non-issue blown out of the water as some kind of evil mastermind carefully crafting the media landscape rather than just one person making a thing they like and blocking out the things they think are bad. This literally is freedom of speech and it couldn't be more free than "don't like what I'm doing? Go and do it yourself then, here are all the instructions, no strings attached". Trying to force somebody's hand because you don't like what they are doing will only have the effect of driving the developer away entirely.
There are loads of projects and pieces of software I have seen that are either created by hateful people or people who tolerate bigotry in their community but it is my right to ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Likely all they are doing is hurting themselves and I can live in hope that it doesn't work out in the long run. I'm happy to make my distaste for it known and make it clear that i object to it but to say they have some kind of duty to cater to me or anyone else??? No, but hopefully if people get the message, agree and stop using their software or fork it and make their own then that's a win.