irotsoma

I’m filling in the blanks with the logical conclusion based on the direction of social media in general since there are blanks and this policy discourages moderators from moderating when there are blanks. And moderators trying to not get banned will often do the same.

Lack of specific directions for a scenario with conflicting, subjective options, a limited leadership empowered to make decisions so the lower levels can’t all have direct access, and the threat of serious consequences for doing it wrong is how fascism thrives through inaction against it. Same goes for regulatory systems and thus is likely to happen in a moderation system. This is just sociology.

Anyway, I’ll be moving my main profiles and communities for now and check in at a later date to see how the policy develops. Hope you’ll consider the needs of the communities over the needs of the extremists.

But what about black people should be slaves or women should be household objects or Autism needs to be “cured”, or all of the other hate speech that some people think is not hate speech? I hope that you’ll clarify the rules because the post here left it open for interpretation and specifically made it policy that anything “subjective” to any person’s point of view shouldn’t be moderated. Free speech isnt free if it’s not regulated. If people are free to say I’m not human because I’m LGBTQ+, autistic, or any other trait that is considered “bad” by some group of people, then I’m not free to exist, much less speak.

If this isn’t clear, I’m not sure how else to make it clear. I’ll be moving along and dragging my groups with me, but for those remaining, I hope you’ll reconsider trying to ban objective moderation and create very specific categories of what can be moderated. But that’s a huge undertaking.

It’s generally better to come from the other side. Give a set of things that should NOT be moderated on top of the things that MUST be moderated (like the concept of “protected classes” in many anti-discrimination laws) and as exceptions come up, add them to the NOT moderated list.

Your way is stating everything is in the NOT moderated as it’s all subjective to someone and thus the hate speech policy is void unless all parties including the ones saying it agree that it’s hate speech (which they never will). This is backwards and will create a ton of hate speech to get through and thus a ton of true free-speech to be lost from the minorities they attack. This is how it has worked throughout history. It’s not a new concept, so I’m unsure how else to say it to convince you.

But if this policy goes into effect. You are saying it’s all subjective and thus the hate speech policy only applies if you or a server level admin say it’s hate speech. You’re asking moderators not to moderate if there’s any question about whether it is OK or not. And a large number of people now believe it’s OK which is why X and Meta have these policies, so to me and likely to many moderators here, you’re saying exactly as Meta just said, don’t moderate these things as hate speech. Remember, Meta also still has an anti-hate speech policy, it’s just that these subjects are no longer considered hate speech by enough of their users that they don’t allow moderation of it. You’re asking for the exact same thing, you just haven’t called out the specifics, you’re leaving it “subjective”. And with moderation, abstaining from action is the exact same as acceptance.

If you’re going to say speech saying a person is mentally ill because they are LGBTQ+ or that a woman are “household property” needs to be evaluated subjectively and these changes are saying that moderators should not make subjective determinations and should err on the side of assuming they are OK, then you are saying that these things are not hate speech and thus not covered by the hate speech policy. And with moderation of X and Meta now saying these things are not hate speech, it seems even more likely that moderators will need to leave these things in place due to this policy. And in that case I’ll be leaving as I don’t wish to be the target of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-autism, or any other hate speech that is now allowed on X and Meta and will likely have to be allowed here as some group considers them not hate speech.

The problem other than the fact that the timing is suspect as other social media is moving as quickly as possible to allow hate speech under the guise of free speech, is that the language uses seems to imply that moderators must cater to moderating only things that are hateful or attacks by all users. Problem is that many on the far right don’t consider the things I mentioned or most other hate speech to be disrespectful. They don’t consider those people to be worthy of respect or human at all. They are “followers of the devil” or whatever excuse they have told themselves to justify their hate.

So saying that hate speech is not respectful only works if all parties consider it hate speech. But all of these things are now excluded from what Meta considers hate speech (they do still ban hate speech in general, just are more specific now about what that is). For example, they just consider LGBTQ+ people being mentally ill to be a fact or at least setting up for debate. They even provide examples of what they consider to be “opinion” and thus “free speech” and not “hate speech” like calling trans and non-binary people “it” or calling women “household objects” to dehumanize them is considered not hate speech by them.

So, either you need to specifically call out all the things you consider hate speech that far right people do not, or you need to allow moderators to do their job as members of society that understand what is hate and what is not. It’s never black and white.

I didn’t say treatment wasn’t good. I said it wasnt something to cure. Just like black people might seek counseling for how to deal with the inequalities, autistic people need treatment to deal with the issues that society causes for them. I’m saying anything that’s saying Autism is something to be “cured” is hate speech. You’re saying that Autistic people like me should exist as we are, but change to fit society, just like saying a black person should change their skin color to fit in better. Autism is not a disease regardless of what companiea like Autism Speaks try to push. It is simply a different way of thinking.

So yes, is you’re one of the people specifically saying that Autism shouldn’t exist and needs to be cured that is pure hate speech. It you’re saying it requires treatment, then it depends on the specifics and thus my use of the word “most”. So it saying it needs a cure should be moderated as hate speech. But if no hate speech is being moderated to allow thing that aren’t hate speech that doesn’t make sense. If you understand what is and what isnt hate speech, then it’s easy to moderate bad from less obviously good or bad. It’s not a thin line.

Because most are saying that my existence is a disease to be cured and not simply a different way of existing. It’s like telling a black person that drug should be developed to bleach their skin so they can live more like the general public without a lifetime of prejudices. Autism only requires therapy to force us to act differently than our brains tell us to act. Not because oír normal way of acting is somehow self-destructive, but because it breaks social norms and makes others uncomfortable. The “cure” is fir other people to accept us as we are, just like the “cure” for being black is to accept them not change them.

I couldn’t care less about flat earthers. It’s the lack of moderation of hate speech that prompted me to leave Meta products. When the speech is specifically designed to harm others it’s a huge difference from just harming themselves and their willing peers. Allowing spreading that LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill or that Autistic people need to be fixed rather than accepted, or that all immigrants are bad people, those things are not just bad science (though that’s part of it). They are designed to have those people ostracized or murdered. That is not “respectful disagreement”. That is pure hate-speech, even if the person saying it truly believes it. It is detrimental to the community and if that is allowed here like on Meta now, I’ll happily leave as a proud LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent person among other things that current “political discourse” (i.e. acceptable hate) is being allowed to spread.

One of the primary requirements for my latest project moving a bunch of stuff to self hosted is that if it has a GUI that is going to be internet facing, it either has to support OIDC or it has to be something low risk enough that I feel comfortable setting it up without much security and just setting up a single basic auth login with traefik. A few apps I had trouble finding, but worked most of it out.

It’s just how HR does stuff in the US. Most applications have to go through an automated system for filtering before reaching a person, unless it’s a pretty small company. That system usually requires very specific criteria to get through. Like I remember applying for a seasonal job at Target, around the end of 2010 when I was laid of, and having to fill out a really detailed application online and take a bunch of personality tests. Turns out I scored too high on leadership and had too much professional experience to be a stock person/cashier, so I was rejected before it was sent to the store manager.

It’s not an accident or unintended consequence kind of thing either. It’s how they can have a job position “open” and have hundreds of applications, but still be understaffed and thus force workers to work what should be extra people’s jobs for no extra pay. It’s just how the mega-corp culture is in the US for the most part.

As for the software and some other very technical industries, it’s a similar cultural thing, but on top of that, most recruiters are not technically literate and so don’t know how to judge a technical person, but are made to filter applications before passing then on. My last job had a position open the entire 10 years I worked there and there were no interviews at the hiring manager or team level in all that time. It was an analyst position and I would have hired basically anyone who had the one bit of specialized knowledge if it was up to me. But I did the job of two people the whole 10 years and was never able to move up I the company because of it.

Only reason I didn’t leave sooner was that I didn’t have the funds to get a degree when I was younger and fell into a time when the crazy unsecured loans were not as much of a thing, and most companies filter out software related candidates without a degree up front, regardless of experience. Finally got a degree when I found a program that I could handle while also doing two peoples’ worth of work.

If it’s just one job post, then automating it is not going to be very useful. I don’t think OP meant that. Seemed like they want to give a general CV/resume and then feed it each job posting and get customized versions for each posting. Many HR departments have keyword filters necessary to clear before it gets to a person. Otherwise, it takes only a few minutes to customize one time and would be much better to do manually anyway.

Problem is, these days it usually takes 50-100 job applications per interview depending on industry. In the software industry (in the US anyway), that’s about average. Last job took me about 500 applications and that led to 3 third-round interviews and 2 of them gave offers. Total I probably had around 8-10 first round interviews, not including the many 5-10 minute phone calls with headhunter recruiters that contacted me based just on my resume on LinkedIn and various other sites.

It’s good to use SSL even if you don’t plan to use it externally. At some point you may change your mind, or you may need to access it via VPN and there may be one hop between your browser and the VPN that will then be in plain text. Plus, not all devices are trustworthy anymore. An Android or iPhone device might have “malware” (including from reputable companies like Google trying to track you for ad purposes but recording unsecured http traffic to do it.) Or a frienday bring a bad device over and connect to your wifi and inadvertently capture that traffic. Lots of ways for internal traffic to be spied on.

Google: “how to create self signed certificate authority on <your workstation OS>”

And if that article doesn’t have it, google: “how to create a domain certificate from a self signed certificate authority”.

It doesn’t have to be a valid external domain, just use “.internal” as the top level domain which is reserved for this kind of thing, like “vaultwarden.internal”. You can also just use IP addresses in the certificate, but I find that less desirable.

Then google: "how to add a trusted certificate authority on <all your OS’s of all internal devices>”. Depending on what web browser you use, you may need to add it there as well. Once the certificate authority is trusted by your devices and browsers, then the domain certificate created by that CA will be as well.

You can set your expiration dates to be far in the future if you want, to avoid having to create new ones often, but be sure to document how just so in 5 or 10 years or so, if it’s still that way, you’ll know how to update them.

Cloudflare DDNS updated by ddclient on my OpnSense router. Cloudflare happens to be my current domain registrar. Honestly, my IPv4 doesn’t change that often. And when I used to be on Comcast, they assigned a block of IPv6 addresses and the router dealt with that. Unfortunately, I now have Quantum Fiber who only assign a single IPv6 address, so I gave up on IPv6 for now.

The split view seems really useful. I was actually just fiddling with that on my laptop with two browser windows.

How does this compare to LibreWolf or other Firefox derived projects?

Depends on how secure the application and the security you use in front of the application such as reverse proxies, load balancers, etc. If you are exposing a web application with no SSL, no two factor with, or something in a beta state or if you can’t trust your ISP not to create man-in-the-middle attacks for advertising and collecting information to sell which also likely introduces security vulnerabilities, then that could be a problem and a VPN or similar might be a big help.

https://forgejo.org/

I have it running on a raspberry pi at home behind a reverse proxy on my router and backed up to rsync.net. But hosting it on a cheap VPS might be easier.

I host forgejo for myself.

The answer to your question of why it’s so hard to give artists your money is exactly the same as it has been for ages for all media. The few companies who survived the consolidation of the industry have done everything in their power to make sure they are the gatekeepers of content. They buy and merge or kill off any competing companies or technologies.

They weren’t successful with MP3s or with streaming because they didn’t bother to understand the technology or that the Internet was the new marketplace and thought they could just do what they had done with physical media and pay for laws that protected their interests and sue everyone, but they ultimately lost control because you can’t sue hundreds of millions of people like you can sue a few thousand stores. So they had to give the people what they wanted for a while so they could have time to buy up all of the companies.

But they’ve now done that and paid enough to get the laws and precedents on interpreting those laws that they wanted, so courts are becoming better at enforcing those laws more quickly. So they can pressure new tech that pushes the limits on interpreting the laws to not last long enough to get people hooked. And now that they’ve reconsolidated most of the market and technologies as capitalism tends to do if you’re patient enough and there’s no possibility of monopoly regulation or market disruption, we’re stuck with pirate or use the garbage they feed to us and most artists are back to having to sign their art away and sleep with executives to get the marketing and distribution from the gatekeepers just to get a chance at success. The rest have to rely on word of mouth and self distribution which even online can be expensive without the advantages of centralized hosting providers, merchant accounts, and bandwidth.

Docker automatically upgrades if you tell it to by specifying “latest” or not specifying a version number. But it only upgrades if you issue the pull command or the compose up command. There are ways to start without a pull like using start or restart. So yes, there was warning and something you did actively told it to upgrade.

And it’s really bad practice to update any software without testing, especially between breaking/major version numbers.

Finally, it’s not uncommon for a platform to release its update and then the plugins or addons to follow. Especially with major updates that require lots of testing before release. This allows plugin/add-on makers to fully test their software with the release version of the platform rather than all of the plugin makers having to wait for one that may be lagging behind.

Native OIDC support…something I wish more self hosted apps would prioritize. I shouldn’t need to maintain a bunch of user account systems on my own servers.