I’ve blocked a bunch of people, who may be replying to me with harassing comments, but that isn’t influencing what I do. It might influence the overall conversation, and that could be a problem, but I think the way that problem is dealt with should be public, because the problem is public, it’s not something that’s exclusively my problem. I don’t think I should have the authority to act to police any arbitrary community like that, especially without anyone being able to know that I’m doing it.

I do think it would be less bad if it only prevented direct comment replies, and not replies to top level posts or replies to other comments by other people further down the thread.

I don’t understand what you mean by it still occurs in the other direction though. Nobody can prevent people from commenting except moderators and admins, which is how it should be. Mute style blocking isn’t moderation because it doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to comment, it’s effectively the same as a client level filter.

Because the alternative is easily abused, see all the issues Reddit has with this type of block mechanism.

The core of the problem as I see it is, this gives every user limited moderation powers in every sub, the extent of that power is determined mainly just by how much they post and comment (blocked users can’t comment under their posts, and can’t reply to any comment in a chain started by the blocker), and the extent to which it is happening is invisible to most users. People advocating for this seem to assume it will be used mostly defensively, to prevent harassment, but the feature has way more utility offensively, and it’s totally unaccountable. If there is something someone is saying (not even necessarily to you) that you don’t like for whatever reason, whether or not it’s against the rules and regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, you can partially silence them by blocking and then working to get engagement in the same spaces they comment in. Think about if this was implemented on Lemmy, lots of communities have only one or a few people making all the posts, if one or more of them blocked you that’s almost the same as a ban. It doesn’t make it better that the people making those posts are often also moderators, because it would be a way to pseudo ban people without it showing up in the mod log.

Moderation of online discussion spaces should be transparent and accountable, it shouldn’t be a covert arms race between users.

Not universally true but in the context of soup yeah fair point

I eat beans basically as my main diet and don’t really soak or rinse them or anything, have no digestive issues from it.

There is no way these beans all have the same cooking time

an attempt to rebrand the declining alt-right movement.

Is it true that the alt-right movement is “declining”? Would be nice

Why can’t a judge say “I denounce the Supreme courts authority for their failing to uphold the spirit of the law and now I shall follow this other courts rulings”?

The constitution clearly says they can’t, so if their notion of the law is claiming to be based in the constitution such a declaration would be obviously bullshit. If their notion of the law is not based on the constitution, that’s an attempt to dissolve our government.

I’m not assuming that, I just don’t see why would it even matter if it’s from another instance.

Is it a mistake? Wouldn’t federated content still count the same way legally, since an instance is also a website?

I don’t think this is true, but a lot of this impression is probably because much of the growth in actual use of cryptocurrency for everyday finance is happening outside of places like the US or Europe:

In the 12 months ending June 2025, APAC [Asia-Pacific] emerged as the fastest-growing region for on-chain crypto activity, with a 69% year-over-year increase in value received. Total crypto transaction volume in APAC grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.36 trillion, driven by robust engagement across major markets like India, Vietnam, and Pakistan.

Close behind, Latin America’s crypto adoption grew by 63%, reflecting rising adoption across both retail and institutional segments. In comparison, Sub-Saharan Africa’s adoption grew by 52%, indicating the region’s continued reliance on crypto for remittances and everyday payments. These figures underscore a broad shift in crypto momentum toward the Global South, where on-the-ground utility is increasingly fueling adoption.

There is also the way stablecoins are now a growing top 20 holder of US debt, and major financial institutions moving to have infrastructure on crypto networks. Change is happening even if it isn’t immediate or directly visible to everyone.

To be fair there’s all the shit with dollar denominated oil, SWIFT, terrorist regime change on countries that don’t want to play along, etc. It might not be based on any kind of fair exchange of value, but that’s not quite the same as the USD’s global reserve currency status being vibes-only.

What does that enable? Could people in states blocked by the main network use it through these?

Shadowremoval or shadowdeletion would make sense

Kind of but no one really uses those words and you’d have to explain what you mean by them. Also, the distinction isn’t very important; the main thing is that this particular style of web moderation abuse was inflicted on someone, and using different terms for minor variations in the practice gives the people using it too much credit, especially when they aren’t above using all of them anyway.

You’re right that the part of the word that says ‘ban’ is potentially misleading if it’s used this way, but it still seems like the best option. To me the ideal term here would be something that clearly conveys a more expansive definition, but that also still conveys that it is something being inflicted on a person, as opposed to a more conciliatory verb that describes an action towards a piece of content.

It’s still visible to you, it shows up as [Removed] to others

I still call this shadowbanning if it’s just the comment and not the whole account, because intentionally hiding from someone that nobody is seeing what they write is what shadowbanning is all about.

That they are trying to disarm their political adversaries seems like evidence. Afaik the situation so far is, the people they are detaining can mostly expect to survive. If it progresses beyond that, that’s when vulnerable groups still having guns gets more relevant, because the likelihood of a shootout is going to affect the scalability of mass arrests, or of the viability of extrajudicial killings by groups the government refuses to police.

Seems like a stretch to call it an RTS

This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.

That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn’t necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.

Well like I said that’s kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I’m saying?

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I think the reality is that the choice whether to be a landlord has no effect on the supply of housing and so is almost totally irrelevant to this essentially systemic issue. The only kind of stuff that matters here:

• Supply of housing influencing its cost
• Relative wealth of the poorest influencing their ability to pay for housing
• Other factors (the credit system etc) limiting people’s access to housing
• Legal ability to use housing as a speculative investment and store of wealth (ie. low property taxes even if you own multiple properties)

The idea that people would buy property and then provide housing on a charitable basis in defiance of the market isn’t realistic and isn’t a viable solution to the problem. The only solution is to build the right incentives into the system. Someone can support the latter without trying to do the former.