Fair enough! I guess the tone of your post comes across as more complaining than constructive. Your comments sound a lot different :)

Getting an admin response within hours sounds extremely reasonable to me, TBH. You may want to reconsider your expectations of free services, this is coming across pretty entitled.

It’s also incredible how good some of them are, and how divided the feedback can get.

!boardgames@sopuli.xyz

Also, check out !newcommunities@lemmy.world and !communitypromo@lemmy.ca

… wut. 15-20 mins isn’t exactly egregious for #2.

I see we’ve not evolved much past the politics of today

https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

The internet being what it is, I’d be more surprised if there wasn’t already a website set up somewhere with a malicious robots.txt file to screw over ANY crawler regardless of providence.

I’m still not seeing the bad part.

There’s plenty of honor in Deepseek releasing open source.

Can we get them to do the same for certain states in the US as well?

IKEA sells bottles like this

Story time? What’s your experience on the other side?

My discussion so far has been about hypotheticals. My actual comment was limited to a single statement correcting them when they said trump would be better. In a very mild, nonoffensive manner. If you decide that’s worth banning for, you do you.

Thanks, you make some good points. There’s certainly room for improvement. In this case I wasn’t making fun of anybody, but I agree I could have sugar coated it a bit more.

Removed by mod

Actual bad actors are unlikely to leave any evidence of their identity. Not slipping up and admitting on a public forum that you’re acting in bad faith is basic competency, unless you’re an AI chatbot.

Your poll clearly shows that only a minority of people are more sympathetic to Israel, yet both candidates offered complete support to Israel.

Because in a 2 party voting system, politicos generally take whichever side of an issue will (they believe) net them the most votes. Whether their choice did actually net them the most votes is another question entirely.

How does, “I’m about equally sympathetic to both sides,” translate to, “I think we should give billions of dollars of military equipment to one side?”

It translates to “I can understand and live with whatever decisions the politicos make”. Which then leads the politicos to consider the previous point, of ‘which side will probably net me the most votes?’.

Hey! I love your arguments, they’re always really well reasoned and laid out.

I agree fully with your logic, emotional people are hurting and not going to make the best calls. I get that. The problem is, when an interaction exists only online, with no way that participants can know each other IRL. What is to prevent just about anybody who is acting in bad faith from hiding behind that emotion as a shield to justify all kinds of bad behaviour? Using this logic online means surrendering to any such party with bad intentions looking to benefit, such as the groups you mentioned in the following quote.

I definitely think there were skilled people who latched on to that movement and tried to use it to hurt Democrats as a US political tool, too

I don’t think there’s any real conflict between how we are seeing things, only in the way we are choosing to respond to them. You’re saying (I think) that we should give the bad actors free rein because to do otherwise would be to further hurt the ones who are already hurting. I think that to allow them to do whatever they want with impunity by allowing them to hide behind the victims is unacceptable, not least because it’s going to lead to even more victims in the long run.

Pinging @spujb@lemmy.cafe since I think you’d be interested in continuing to follow this discussion.

Done. Although it’s something of a moot point in this case.

Also, I didn’t actually deobfuscate anything, it’s just standard behaviour on the Tesseract UI.