SweetCitrusBuzz

We think Minds tried something like this (though it might be different tiers) and it didn't exactly go well, forcing users to pay one way or the other always leads to economic pressures to keep users around, even if they are being toxic at least from what we have observed.

clashing with their users' need to stay isolated from users who are toxic to them.

Sadly Lemmy does not solve this problem as the creators think like a corporation or do not want to be fully cut off from other users and thus do not have proper blocking (which is something built into ActivityPub mind you), for now it is only one way blocking which does not solve being isolated from toxic users as it still allows for some toxic behaviour etc.

If Lemmy ever gets that feature it would actually prove that it is dedicated to user safety, but a lot of people in the open source social media world seem to be 'concerned' with not being able to see everything due to entitlement, as others unrelated to Lemmy also are lacking the same or similar features.

Maybe, but social problems cannot entirely be solved with technology.

Yes, I meant more long term but didn't express that fully. So you are correct, corporate social media will go that way eventually unless they do the things we recommended.

Corporations cannot create nontoxic social media, the incentives will always be there to make it toxic.

The only way to do it is something like mastodon where actual people run it and thus can deal with people who are being toxic either by blocking etc because the fear of losing money, or the likelihood of the entire site/platform disappearing etc just isn't there (obvioiusly individuals sites go down sometimes but the entire network is unlikely to disappear), or by the use of people explaining why what they did was wrong and the toxic people listen.

Edit: If Bluesky actually ever becomes decentralised as in users can run their own servers and federate or block other servers then perhaps it might become good, but until such a time then I do not trust them.

They should also make a non-profit foundation if they want to be seen as trustworthy, so that they can't ever be sold off.

Those are the only way we and many others will ever trust them.

Today we learned about Bliss Stage which sounds a lot better than F.A.T.A.L in some regards.

There's also Thirsty Sword Lesbians which focuses a lot on consent.

Are you okay?

I can do them, but honestly I would prefer to have played through many without such a mainstay of games. It just often gets in the way of what I am really there for: the story. Plus it's becoming more and more gruesome.

I think though killing and rape are not exactly the same. Women are historically treated very poorly in game spaces, both in games and outside of them. This kind of thing just adds to it and honestly makes me question what the developers are really like.

As someone else said "check whether there are women in the developer's dungeon".

Good. Honestly most games in the sex space are pretty bad for both consent and treating the characters like actual people.

The dialogue is pretty unrealistic too.

The only good one we have come across so far is Cute Demon Crashers. It is heavily about consent and the writing isn't that bad either. True, it's not going to be 'realistic' in terms of character models nor have fully fleshed out sex scenes but since most in that genre seem to be terrible in general perhaps that is a good thing.

'Experimental'. Lol, bet they've not read one actual study.

Thanks for your reply and further clarifying your point. 🙂

but there's not much food on it, so probably not worth planting outside of its native range.

It is important to not plant things outside of their native range. However, plants and animals do not exist only for food. They exist so they should continue to and should be helped, not as something useful for creatures but because they should and because they help life no matter whether they are seemingly immediately useful for creatures or not.