In theory, yes, but it would have to scale up significantly in order to be noticed. And then since it would be split across many difference instances would be a logistical nightmare for authorities.

Not commenting on the validity of your ban or not, but if you get instance banned on Lemmy - the system will automatically directly ban you from all communities on that instance that you have previously commented on. So it looks like a mass community ban.

Ofcom don’t know what the Fediverse is.

They don’t need to lawyer up if they have no presence in the UK. They can just send them a meme picture of a hamster.

Lemm.ee shut down for entirely unrelated reasons.

It might be hard to enforce for every instance but even if only 1% of instance admins get strongly worded letters threatening fines if they don’t follow the law, I guarantee you that many more will just decide that it’s not worth the risk, they close their instances and we end up with even fewer users than before.

Lol, Ofcom still are stuck trying to ban 4chan. You overestimate their ability.

Quite hard to enforce that given even with growth, it would be federated.

I disagree. I think upvotes/downvotes being public contribute overall to a high-trust culture. Mods absolutely can be stupid about it and ban people for single downvotes, but some people really do mass downvote entire communities and/or spin up alternative accounts purely to downvote.

!dungeoncrawlers@piefed.blahaj.zone

I simply wanted a fresh space to build new communities on a service that better promotes the visibility of content. Reddit is busy, but it’s also old and tired. Every community name is taken. All the names are used up. Some are actively maintained with enthusiasm, some are run by skeleton crews and others are mostly abandoned. Just because a site has all the people doesn’t mean you can get engagement there because more people also means more competition for visibility.

!recalbox@lemmy.zip

I’m pretty sure the vast majority of all penned in functions were present at base before Piefed had anyone specifically scrutinising the code, before the platform was more popular. That is to say that the software itself was originally more designed in a personalised way, and then many core functions were removed. Yes, someone noticed it each time - but I am not aware of anything specifically ‘snuck in’ here.

The development of Piefed has been for default settings to be removed and detached over time, not added in.

https://piefed.world/post/808290

https://piefed.zip/c/globalnews/p/977134/sudan-civil-war-spills-over-into-neighboring-chad-peoples-dispatch

Note this is purely on piefed.social specifically, not some universal thing.

My own !obscuremusic@piefed.social

europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com has returned to piefed.social after we confirmed that the moderator in questions mod-logs would not continue to federate out.

My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

I think specific concepts of god are “probably false”. But not ‘god’ as a wider concept.

Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

I mean if they do, they can still engage in it.

Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me.

Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it?

I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself?

There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically “the existence of god”. Some people might just find it fun for its own sake.

The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance.

Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest?

Did you mean to reply to the other user?

I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism.

What do you mean “no stance”? I agree that most atheists aren’t especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism.

How do you work that out?

All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly.

What do you mean by “self-proclaiming”? I am an atheist because I don’t believe in a god(s). That’s it.

If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs.

By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here.