the easiest out is probably the crying soyjak

not exactly what the expression means. rope means we wait for them to commit the offense and then ban, in this case prozionist behavior that’s instance-wide or widespread among their users’ comments on our instance

this is not at all what i’m seeing on discord, and I think it’s worthy of note that the article’s sample is Reddit posts in r/discordapp. Discord users who use Reddit in general have a systemic bias that’s close to ours, as opposed to the majority that is young Discord users.

banning the communities is a no-brainer (yes); we already have a ban on pro-Zionism. (I do wonder how !buyfromeu@feddit.org is involved in all this though; I found absolutely no mentions of “semit” in the federated modlog and I’m too tired to visit the original modlog rn.)

but I’m really unsure about banning the entire instance, as many here seem to suggest. you have convinced me that Emopunker is clueless at best and [REDACTED] at worst, but I would want to see more evidence that this has created a problematic user or moderation culture than some actions of one admin and one mod (plus one user ban without context performed by another mod). three quarters of the screenshots here deal with removal reasons like saying “fuck off you piece of trash” and editing the headline that just happen to be applied to anti-Zionist content. maybe there’s some context of discriminatory enforcement i can’t see here, but “choice morsels” should really show the best evidence we have.

i think we should make a separate thread with said stronger evidence to decide on the instance ban.

(p.s.: as a Wikipedia editor I am also very fond of the “Give 'em enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” argument mentioned)

https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/blob/d3a6870f391a3942caf65b4c0bb65081a5b7c9e0/onboarding-feature/src/main/java/eu/europa/ec/onboardingfeature/interactor/DocumentIdentificationInteractor.kt
https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/blob/d3a6870f391a3942caf65b4c0bb65081a5b7c9e0/issuance-feature/src/main/java/eu/europa/ec/issuancefeature/interactor/DocumentOfferInteractor.kt#L169
https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/blob/d3a6870f391a3942caf65b4c0bb65081a5b7c9e0/core-logic/src/main/java/eu/europa/ec/corelogic/model/DocumentIdentifier.kt#L25-L45
https://ageverification.dev/Technical Specification/architecture-and-technical-specifications/?h=eu.europa.ec.av.1#412-attribute-set

Granted, the source code is not intuitively named, I’ll give you that. I wouldn’t have expected the repo links to be in https://ageverification.dev/Setup/ “Setup” either. But thanks to the fact that it is open source, anyone can check that they never send IDs to a server that requests age verification. The necessary information is scanned from the ID locally on the device.

Again, the EU age verification is not done by private companies. It’s open source, the specifications are out, and it’s run by the government. Companies that access the attestation only learn whether the user/shifting IP is above the age of majority. They cannot get your ID.

On what data? All age verification does is attest that an IP is over a certain age; the European solution collects no information other than the boolean “Is user over <age>?”, the expiry date, and the issuing authority. I don’t know what you can do with data simply saying that the user isn’t browsing the internet “illegally”, since with age gating every user on the Internet is over that age. In our present time of dynamic/private IPs, the operator behind the IP (and consequently their age) changes constantly anyways, meaning that little data is constantly invalidated.

Chat Control is “dormant”. It’s been amended, re-proposed, and then put back on the backburner for umpteenth times, including this time. It’s definitely a threat, I agree, but nothing about it has become more eager in 2025.

Chat Control has been haunting the chambers since 2021, and it’s in dormancy again as of November 2025. I don’t see how age checks benefit tech companies at all given they reduce their audience and the data for verification is required to be received by the government and denied to private entities. If you live in the EU, you’ve already given the government more information than that.

Besides starting to fine tech companies for violating the DMA, you also have the Digital Fairness Act proposal last year that we’ll soon see debating in Q3.

why don’t people remember the Digital Markets Act anymore… they charged Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft… and fined Apple and Meta half a billion right last year and people seem to be pretending that didn’t happen

Citation needed.

This is a New York Times article. By default, the New York Times is the citation, just like every other MSM. And even then, this specific article does attribute it:

To understand how this happened, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 current and former OpenAI employees — executives, safety engineers, researchers. Some of these people spoke with the company’s approval, and have been working to make ChatGPT safer. Others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared losing their jobs.

Claude is trying to lick my ass clean every time I ask it a simple question

The article only said they made a test, not that they weren’t failing it, which happens to be what the linked paper says. This is not new as LLMs also always failed a certain intelligence test devised around that same time period until ~2024.

As soon as they found experts who were willing to say something else than “don’t make a chatbot”.

That’s 55%: https://humanfactors.jmir.org/2025/1/e71065

so is his entire album Pop Insect

git packages are not supposed to be zip bombs

I agree that the manner this was presented at the 2013 Webbys, which kickstarted the debate, was jokingly, but the specifications have always recommended “jiff” since the format’s inception, though also a bit jokingly:

Wilhite and the team who developed the file format included in the technical specifications that the acronym was to be pronounced with a soft g. In the specifications, the team wrote that “choosy programmers choose … ‘jif’”, in homage to the peanut butter company Jif’s advertising slogan of “choosy moms choose Jif”.[3]

no, this is just the software files packaged by a random internet user. to me it looks like the packager just plain messed up and the app is actually just <1.3 GB large

He was outed by Harvey Milk, more details are in the article or in what I quoted lol

Harvey Milk was a gay activism martyr and has in general an extremely positive image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U3-RKTs1cY

deleted by creator

it’s also wrong™, but i think attraction is a complicated thing and unlikely to be extrinsically changed after it forms. not that the process of said formation is free from bigotry exposed to, but shaming people for certain attractions instead of, say, focusing on improving representation, inclusivity, and normalization in the environment is more likely to make them fodder and supporters for bigotry. though attraction biases are a symptom of bigotry, this is one of those cases imo where it’s much better to treat the cause over the symptom.

i know it’s satire. i’m wondering how genderqueer people would react to people sincerely saying that irl

the landing page mentions “your tongue has taste zones”. though on the other hand brontosauruses are real again