ada

ada, 5 months ago

It strikes me that there is the potential to use trusted remote servers as a means of recovering the lost data. I mean, nearly every lemmy instance except lemmy.ml will have copies of the missing data, and given the hugely redundant availability of that data (including the ability to compare from multiple sources to establish/verify trust), using that data to rebuild missing content seems like it could be useful functionality.

ada, 5 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Ok, there’s your instance, instance A, that hosts your personal account. There’s the instance that hosts the community, instance B, and a random instance that your content has federated to, but doesn’t host you or the community directly. This is instance C.

If an admin on A (instance A mods can’t remove this post) removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including B and C.

If an admin or community mod on instance B removes your post, it gets removed on other instances too, including A and C.

However, if an admin on C removes your post (a moderator on C can’t), then it is only removed on instance C. Instance A and B and any other instances the content has federated to aside from C, continue to see replies, edits, votes etc

ada, 5 months ago

One final point. My example above only works if there are no mods for the community on instance C.

If there is a community mod on instance C, that moderator can remove the post and the removal will federate, even when an admin removal on instance C will not (unless that admin is also a community mod for the instance B community)

ada, 5 months ago

Not quite. An account on instance C that has moderator privileges on a community hosted on instance B can’t take any direct actions against instance B content.

All that can do is remove it in instance C. However, because they’re a moderator, that removal will federate to instance B, which will remove it there, and then federate that removal to any instance that the post federated to originally.

ada, 6 months ago

Improve my Spanish. It’s low stakes because I was going to be doing it anyway, but this makes it a formal goal :)

ada, 6 months ago

Nah. They knowingly and deliberately house hate groups. They get actively defederated.

ada, 6 months ago

Cool pun

ada, 6 months ago

This was pretty much my experience too

ada, 6 months ago

No one. I spent it in Buenos Aires with my partner. Best Christmas in a long time

ada, 6 months ago

Who is “everyone else” in this story?

The only place I know that days Happy Christmas is the UK

In Australia, it’s merry

ada, 6 months ago

Either way, happy and merry Christmas to you :)

ada, 6 months ago

So in this instance, you’re posting to a group on lemmy.ml. The way groups work is that the instance the group is on boosts any posts made to that group to users who are subscribed to the group. Lemmy.ml does not have access to your block list, so boosts it based on its own federation list

Authorised fetch fixes this problem in the wider Fediverse, but Lemmy lacks a proper implementation of it at this point AFAIK

ada, 6 months ago

I’ve never seen snow…

Unless you count from an aeroplane…

ada, 6 months ago

Transmeds. Trans folk who gatekeep other trans folk, and think they can say who is “really trans” and who isn’t.

ada, 6 months ago

Why? What language are we lacking that would help if added, that wouldn’t just lead to more gatekeeping?

We already have the language to talk about various elements of social and medical transition.

ada, 6 months ago

As I said though, what language are we lacking that we don’t already have?

ada, 6 months ago

Well, the easiest example is that some people use “trans” to mean anyone who has physicslly started to transition, others consider someone to be trans when they decide to broadcast their new gender identity, and others consider them to have always been trans. The opinion on which one is correct is often quite strong.

Yep. People have strong feelings about their own journeys and identities. They’re welcome to do that. But when they start having strong feelings about other people’s journeys and identities, when they feel like that get to decide who isn’t and isn’t trans based on whatever criteria they particularly feel to be important, then they’re gatekeeping.

Those are the truscum and transmeds I want nothing to do with.

but that opens up the system for abuse by bad actors looking to false flag the trans community.

No it doesn’t. That’s just an excuse people use to post hoc validate their gatekeeping.

ada, 6 months ago

I haven’t seen any gatekeeping to exclude those that haven’t gone through physical transition

There’s a whole branch of trans gatekeepers called transmed/truscum that do exactly that!

ada, 6 months ago

But opening up that definition

It’s not “opening up” a definition. It is the definition.

But opening up that definition means we need another way to refer to people who are physically transitioning, because there are meaningful differences in their experiences and needs.

No we don’t. Not everyone who undergoes medical transition undergoes the same journey. Some folk want surgery, some folk want HRT, some folk want both, some folk want one but not the other. Some folk want to micro dose, some folk want to replicate cis hormone levels.

There is no meaningful catch all term that summarises the needs of all of those folk. Trying to find a single term to capture that spectrum leads to a single narrative of what medical transition looks like, and makes it harder for people to transition on their own terms.

The language we need to talk about these things already exists, and is improving and changing with time. Nothing is gained by returning to the old days of binary terms and all or nothing language.

there’s nothing inherently gatekeeping about it;

Yes there is. It’s defining folk who medically transition as being a different class of trans folk. We’re not a different class. We all of us have unique needs, and the language should focus on those individual needs, whether they’re medical, social or other.

Defining “trans” to be narrower than the wider definition is only wrong because we’re attached to the current definition

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original reply. I’m a binary trans woman, who medically transitioned with all of the bells and whistles, and so I get lumped in with people who genuinely believe statements like this.

I actively, loudly and strongly disagree with what you’ve said here, and I hate that people often assume I share beliefs like that. Defining the term trans to be narrower than it is is gatekeeping, end of story. It denies people the right to their own identity. That is inherently bad. People define for themselves, even in a hypothetical scenario where bad faith actors try and fuck it up

ada, 6 months ago

The thing is, hair is equally as heritable, and immediately visible. As humans, we can see and categorise skin equally with hair.

The fact that we don’t use hair as a major defining trait though is arbitrary. That’s just social norms, nothing more.

ada, 6 months ago

Those are not major defining traits. They could be, but they’re not.

ada, 6 months ago

I’ve never owned a car and likely never will, and honestly, that fact holds a special place in my heart

ada, 6 months ago

Let’s just say I’ve raised a child who is now an adult, all without a car. By now, I know the inconveniences and opportunities it costs me well, but for me, they’re just not enough of a reason.

ada, 6 months ago

I mean, for some it’s not…

ada, 6 months ago

I run an instance focused on the needs of trans and gender diverse folk, because big instances run by cis folk tend not to deal with transphobia as well as I would like.

Centralised instances not dealing with transphobia is why I left most other social media platforms, so you can imagine I’m keen not to just repeat that experience here