I mentioned earlier or elsewhere on this thread that right now, the narrative that I'm aware of is as follows:
Lemmy.world users: just vibing, doing their thing
Concern troll: comes in with a freshly created account to pearl-clutch about scary illegal things
Lemmy.world users: hahaha look at this loser downvotes them to oblivion, resumes vibing
Lemmy.world Admins: Piracy?! OMG that's ILLEGAL, thank goodness someone pointed this out to us
If they had an existing stance on piracy, they should have been already enforcing it. Then it wouldn't look like they were successfully spurred into action by a bad-faith actor.
So many laws work like this too, it makes them worthless if personal wealth is required to get them enforced. If Section 230 only exists for the wealthy and corporations, the fediverse isn't gonna get very far
Like, I think people are upset about blocking the piracy communities, sure, but I think that the real issue is that it feels like everyone is just vibing, doing their thing on their lemmy instances, then this troll comes in all fake concerned about breaking rules, gets utterly piled on naturally, only for the admins in question to come in and "side" with the "loser" in people's eyes.
I think that many people identify as pro life are simply ignorant, so if I want to change that, I'm not gonna get very far by calling them anti-choice because they'll immediately shift into the defensive.
Not the people I'm talking about. Far more people hold partially formed, vague opinions about these things than believe in the Christian rights view entirely.
I sympathise with instance admins without the ability to risk a court fight, but that doesn't mean there aren't those out there who would welcome such a challenge, and I don't think they should be pressured to cave if they're inclined not to.
Sure, but doesn't it suck that it doesn't matter what the law says? Do you think it'll ever change if everyone rolls over and isolates undesirable communities (think beyond piracy to other things like adult content, or content from marginalised groups)
I also just thought that, given how thoroughly downvoted that post and all its OP's comments were, it makes the Admins of Lemmy.world look like they've actively gone against popular opinion. Psychologically, mobs tend to dislike that appearance.
I do grasp writing, that is specifically why I asked this question, because the headline framing it as a loss is negative to people who aren't already supportive of climate action.
The people who wouldn't be swayed would fall into either the hypocritical category above, or are the people who would actually would cruelly force a family member to go through something akin to what happened in the article above, because they believe in the "blessing" or because they're also forcing their kid to marry the rapist, but I'm referring to people who are otherwise well-adjusted but are ignorant of the wider world and have a sanitised view of abortion as something "out there" and "far away" from their life.
I think I've heard about some people getting away with using carpool lanes while pregnant on the basis that they had "two passengers" in some conservative states.
Hopefully, that won't be the case much longer in Ohio with November's ballot question. (the GOP just failed to make it harder to pass by trying to make all constitutional amendments require 60% to pass after polling showed it would by 58%)
There's nothing to sue? They could go after an instance owner, sure, but I'm reasonably sure that there's still Section 230 safe harbor protections for "service providers", which to my knowledge could easily be the owner/admin of a fediverse instance. Perhaps it'll need to be litigated in the courts, which is unfortunate for whoever gets stuck being the trailblazer.
I'm operating on the basis that most people, do in fact, love their family members and want them to live happy, fruitful lives. If someone doesn't want that for their loved ones then what I'm saying wouldn't apply. Someone who is "normal" but not radicalized, in the sense that they may be reflective of society's inherent prejudices and have views shaped by them, but are repulsed by overt displays of racism/sexism, would probably be horrified.
I mentioned earlier or elsewhere on this thread that right now, the narrative that I'm aware of is as follows:
Lemmy.world users: just vibing, doing their thing
Concern troll: comes in with a freshly created account to pearl-clutch about scary illegal things
Lemmy.world users: hahaha look at this loser downvotes them to oblivion, resumes vibing
Lemmy.world Admins: Piracy?! OMG that's ILLEGAL, thank goodness someone pointed this out to us
If they had an existing stance on piracy, they should have been already enforcing it. Then it wouldn't look like they were successfully spurred into action by a bad-faith actor.