No problem by me.
InternetTubes
joined 1 year ago
I had uBlock Origin and I didn't mind paying for YouTube Premium. When I will mind paying for YouTube Premium will be when all of my feed is full of reactionary populist channels, not to avoid paying part of the income that pays some of the people making a career out of streaming on the platform I've been avoiding even watching ads on.
It will be a losing battle for the people not trying to look for alternatives - in the end, Google has control of the backend, they can eventually decide to incorporate ads directly into the streams that are served to people protocol wise and they can decide to forego giving users any warning of when an ad will play and when they will try to force the video into forced reproduction.
That the streams are served in a way where the browser can discern when it should play the ads is more of a courtesy from a legacy architecture that came from a Google that wasn't intent on cracking down on people adblocking, and people may have to revert back to using more specific and resource intensive YouTube adblockers that try to guess when a commercial break is starting and ending directly from the video stream like old school VCRs did: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-2869,00.html
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Has the same sort of motivation investing into it, even if the concepts slightly differ. Stock appraise my meme.
Here's my experience on the fediverse: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit
If you are trying to access it like me now, you might get an Error 50x, but no matter since I can resume it with far more reliable Internet WayBack Machine links.
With my user [email protected], I made the last comment you see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20231020022523/https://kbin.social/u/@[email protected] inside a thread that still ends with "mods and users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World. We hope to discuss and inform constructively and in good faith."
As a result, one of the admins purged and banned my account, removing months of comments and participation, not to mention any credibility I would have when pointing out the claims had I not been able to store them in IWB: https://web.archive.org/web/20231019235547/https://lemmy.world/modlog
The most recent lemmy.world modlog has even been purged of all mentions of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20231021224842/https://lemmy.world/modlog (Search for HEISENBERG and search back up to see the huge gap). The way they acted with my account gives me the impressions that claims from other users who say they were moderators with them are true: https://lemmy.ml/comment/5060380
I've submitted a ticket, whose link leads to a service hosted on mastodon.world, and have received no reply: https://imgur.com/a/aisRzL9
My suggestions:
There needs to be remediation and resilience against bad faith moderation and instances within the fediverse system, otherwise there will be people who take advantage of it. My original comment has criticisms regarding permanent bans as well.
The fediverse could benefit from having a way to migrate accounts if you run into problems with an instance that wouldn't be considered a problem in another instance, to safeguard your submission history.
Modlogs are good but worthless when they can be manipulated, and the fediverse might do well to consider ways to implement decentralized tracking of them to monitor attempts to alter them.
Still, just because an experiment doesn't have the ideal results doesn't mean it doesn't get us closer. Unfortunately, if people are going to trust the server with the best marketing instead looking into issues like this, it pretty much makes it impossible to move on because bad faith actors who are best at lying and cutthroat tactics will be the ones to prevail over people questioning what you are telling them without reading the mountains of evidence you are using to back your claims.
The rot definitely seems too close to the core with lemmy.
I'm not sure what's up, but entries have certainly been removed. This was then: https://web.archive.org/web/20231019235547/https://lemmy.world/modlog
This was a more recent IWM archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20231021224842/https://lemmy.world/modlog
Search for "HEISENBERG" in both and then read back through to the most recent to get an idea of how different they are. Some bans are showing up, some aren't, a lot of them aren't even there.
I'm no expert, but modlog isn't exactly the same across all instances. I think actions like a user getting banned in their home instance do get propagated to the other modlogs, since my ban got propagated to lemmy.ml's moglog, but this user's ban in lemmy.world wasn't.
I haven't touched the lemmy code, but seeing what's mentioned over at https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/2349 , the modlog seems to be just a combination of database tables that are normally maintained server side but, just like in any other database, can be edited manually.
Only trust the modlog as much as you trust the server you are reading it on.
Yeah, I'm really getting the feeling they are just trying to bury it and ignore it. I was having trouble accessing the modlog, but when I was able to, they seemed to have gone through the effort to eliminate a lot of the entries, which included my account purge, ban, and ban reason. They still haven't even bothered to answer the ticket I put up on tickets.mastodon.world, maybe I'll add a screenshot to that later to show the ticket status and the time it has spent as unanswered. No admin has replied to me directly, and the closest I've seen any admin reply on the issue is to criticize the kbin.social instance as reliable because of the criticism they get on them.
The real problem is this is being done in bad faith, and if that's their core drive, then the only thing they'll do in the future is make-up better sounding excuses to cover their asses.
Seriously, this is the least of its problems, but it certainly hints at them: https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/554307/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit
Basically, they don't even follow the examples they set in their Terms of Service and will not only ban but purge your entire comment account on a whim because they didn't like the criticism they said they were open to on a post stating that "users may express their questions, concerns, requests and issues regarding the Terms of Service, and content moderation in Lemmy.World." There's no doubt, they were pretty clear they considered the criticism "disagreeing with the terms of service".
Create your user on another instance and save yourself the surprise of encountering admins who abuse their power on a whim. That can be your entire account history down the drain, and the number of comments or the age of the account won't matter to them.
I was going to reply, but lemmy.world admins decided to ban my account there suddenly and delete my complete comment history because of some criticism to their terms of conduct (hence why the comment you replied to is empty in some instances)... luckily I noticed as I was about to respond to your reply, saving it in the process when it didn't seem to go through. Without further adeu, and keeping in mind that I am not a legal expert:
That's true for cookies, but I'm not so sure it is true for this. I could be completely wrong, so I've tried searching for more answers, and from what I've gathered, it's not even something that all EU states agree with. According to EDPB Guidelines there is something known as "permissible consent". What you are referring to is discussed in this point:
In order for consent to be freely given, access to services and functionalities must not be made
conditional on the consent of a user to the storing of information, or gaining of access to information
already stored, in the terminal equipment of a user (so called cookie walls)
But when you are talking about ads, you aren't just talking about information stored or access to it, you are talking about a commercial transaction, between the person paying the service to put up the ad so that someone views it, who in essence is paying a part of your subscription. This can still exist even when you've refused targeted marketing, so only permissible incentive (seeing ads that may be more relevant to you) is lost in that regard, meaning you still have a genuine choice. But I'm no expert if that's how the law applies.
It really gets nebulous, and I'm not seeing a clear answer in the EDPB guidelines, but it does say this in one of the examples it gives:
As long as there is a possibility to have the contract performed or the contracted service delivered by this controller without consenting to the other or additional data use in question, this means there is no longer a conditional service. However, both services need to be genuinely equivalent.
The only obligation on behalf of YT might be that the user is aware of and agrees to the contract and the collection of personal data, "accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment" for the purpose of fulfilling contractual obligations.
In short, it's not that cut and dry. It's the reason why you can't access Netflix without paying. It's the reason you have a cheaper Netflix service if you accept ads.
view more: next ›
That is my experience, https://kbin.social/m/[email protected]/t/667921/Just-wanted-a-warning-Lemmy-World-is-perhaps-worse-than-reddit
There is hardly any other side to it when it includes the message that prompted the ban and purge, it has as much independent evidence as I've been able to provide. I doubt "my side" can be considered whether my claims took place or not, given that they are so largely indisputable due to web.archive, but I can understand if people have different takes about that says about the sort of admins that would do allow it and handle it as they have.
I don't use my account that much anymore since that can of worms, so sorry if I don't respond to it in a while.