Most people who use “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” use it as a plea for peace - not violence. But ignorant and hateful politicians just ignore the context as it doesn’t fit their narrative.
You probably were banned due to linking the article that had the quote that called for peace in the first line.
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty,” said Andy McDonald, a Labour MP, at a protest in London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Like I said, peace doesn’t fit most people’s narrative.
If it makes you feel better. I also reserve judgement until more information is out. The counter arguments as to why it wouldn’t be Israel does make sense to me. Lack of crater. Hospital walls intact. Hamas were firing rockets over the hospital. And the death figure is reported by Hamas. Most likely incredibly inflated.
Since when was recognized terror organisations reliable sources?
Lemmy isn't a place for debates and arguments. If you don't follow the direction of the topic, don't bother inserting yourself into the conversation.
You need to be nice and supportive of whatever is posted, else you're going to have a bad time.
Read their code of conduct and you'll find that it's a moderator's discretion to ban anyone they believe is disruptive, regardless of the rules.
So unless a moderator goes on a deranged banning binge, you're automatically in the wrong.
If you can't accept that, i suggest you make your own instance, with blackjack and hookers.
From their point of view, only you think there's something to be solved.
A major point of federization is not having to deal with the undesirable rabble. To have your own little slice of the internet where everybody gets along.
You don't get along, so you don't belong. Instead, you are very welcome to find or make an instance where you do belong and can engage in conversations freely.
Lemmy's solution is to make the problem go away, which is why in its eyes, there is nothing to solve.
I think the idea that this is a negative but to me it is not. If a domain or magazine is run poorly then folks then I don't want to go to it. I just want the individual ability to block at all levels working well and would love it both ways. I learned my lesson from mmo's. A completely horrible cesspit of a chat can become pretty decent with just a dozen or so blocks. People who block everyone on a whim. Well thats great as I doubt their discourse is going to be beneficial. folks that don't ban even though someones pushing the line will be rewareded with a richer experience.
Thanks. Odd though that my original post (via the KNova@links.dartboard.social account) did not federate out. I’m not too worried about it as long as this second account works, but I would really like to know why it broke
The only thing. Onsite archive. I’d love it, but I wouldn’t want copyright law used to punish the Lemmy community. I don’t think I’m quite qualified to answer this question, so I’ll ask it here: how worried should we be about that?
It would need some analysis by legal experts. But consider that archive.org gets away with it. Although archive.org has an opt-out mechanism. So perhaps each Lemmy instance should have an opt-out mechanism, which should push a CAPTCHA in perhaps one of few good uses for CAPTCHAs. Then if Quora wants to opt-out, they have to visit every Lemmy instance, complete the opt-out form, and solve the CAPTCHA. Muahaha!
Note as well how 12ft.io works: it serves you Google’s cache of a site (which is actually what the search index uses). How did Google get a right to keep those caches?
There’s also the #fairUse doctrine. You can quote a work if your commenting on it. Which is what we do in the threadiverse. Though not always – so perhaps the caching should be restricted to threads that have comments.
Archive.org doesn’t really “get away with it.” They face frequent lawsuits and have a steady stream of donations to fight them, along with enough staff to handle responding to takedown demands etc. That isn’t true of most Lemmy instances.
Just like Greenpeace paves the way for smaller activist groups that can’t stand up to challenges, archive.org would serve in the same way. When archive.org (with ALA backing) wins a case, that’s a win for everyone who would do the same. Lemmy would obviously stay behind on the path archive.org paves and not try to lead.
I mean, does archive.org get away with it, though?
They have legal troubles not infrequently and they’ve lost at least one copyright case that I know of recently.
I doubt if you pooled all the Lemmy instances’ resources that they’d have the resources to fight a copyright case.
And do I really have to spell out how Google gets away with caching stuff?
Finally, “fair use” isn’t magic words that magically absolve you of any liability in all copyright claims. I’m extremely skeptical fair use could be twisted to our defense in this particular case.
I mean, does archive.org get away with it, though?
They get blocked by some sites, and some sites have pro-actively opt-out. archive.org respects the opt-outs. AFAICT, archive.org gets away w/archiving non-optout cases where their bot was permitted.
And do I really have to spell out how Google gets away with caching stuff?
You might need to explain why 12ft.io gets away with sharing google’s cache, as Lemmy could theoretically operate the same way.
I’m extremely skeptical fair use could be twisted to our defense in this particular case.
When you say “twisted”, do you mean commentary is not a standard accepted and well-known fair use scenario?
They get blocked by some sites, and some sites have pro-actively opt-out. archive.org respects the opt-outs. AFAICT, archive.org gets away w/archiving non-optout cases where their bot was permitted.
Archive.org is more than The Wayback Machine. You’re just talking about The Wayback Machine, not archive.org as a whole. Nothing I’ve said in this thread is about The Wayback Machine specifically.
My point is that archive.org does things that bend, skirt, and run afoul of copyright law (and good on them because fuck the system) and they spend more money, time, and resources fighting copyright suits than I’d imagine all Lemmy instance owners pooling their resources could afford. And that’s if they even cared enough to risk dying on that hill.
You might need to explain why 12ft.io gets away with sharing google’s cache, as Lemmy could theoretically operate the same way.
Not sure how this bit is relevant. I was speaking only about your “stage 4 (onsite archive)” item. (I thought that was pretty clear, but apparently not?) I don’t know if 12ft.io is playing with (legal) fire or not, but I’m not sure why it matters to the conversation. Nothing 12ft.io does is comparable to Lemmy users copying articles into comments.
When you say “twisted”, do you mean commentary is not a standard accepted and well-known fair use scenario?
So, I’m only going to be talking about U.S. “fair use” here because as little as I know about that, I know far far less about copyright law in other countries. That said:
First, whether fair use applies is a fairly complex matter which depends among other things on how much of the original work is copied. While maybe not technically determinitive of the validity of a fair use defense, “the whole damn article” definitely won’t help your case when you’re trying to argue a fair use defense in federal court.
Second, I think for a fair use argument to work the way you seem to be suggesting, the quoted portions of(!) the article would have to appear in the same “work” as the commentary, but I’d imagine typically all comments in a Lemmy thread would be distinct “works.” Particularly given that each comment is independently authored and mostly by distinct authors. (Copying an entire article into a comment and following it with some perfunctory “commentary” would be a pretty transparent ham-fisted attempt at a loophole. Again, a very bad look when you’re arguing your defense in federal court.) I don’t know about your Lemmy instance, but mine doesn’t seem to say anything in the legal page that could provide any argument that a thread is a single “work.” (It does say “no illegal content, including sharing copyrighted material without the explicit permission of the owner(s).”)
(a) Yes. Instance admins have the ultimate say in what’s on their server. They can delete posts, entire communities, ban remote users and delete remote users. At least they had the decency of notifying you!
Since lemmy.ca owns the post, lemmy.world can’t federate out the removal, so it’s only on lemmy.world.
(b) You have to go appeal to lemmy.world. Each instance have its own independent appeal process.
That’s the beauty of the fediverse: instances can all have their rules to tailor the experience to their users, and it doesn’t have to affect the entire fediverse. Other instances linked to lemmy.ca can still see and interact with your post just fine, just not lemmy.world.
Your best bet is just making a new account and integrating better. We don’t do that ‘chemtrail’ shit.
If you’re actually based and comradely; and that chemtrail shit was just a badly-thought-out bit, then… That should be the end of it, and no one would ever know. If “right-conspiratorial” is how you actually are, it’ll be sussed out and handled.
lemmy_support
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.