How do you get image upload enabled btw?

I feel the same way sometimes. I’m a centrist as well, a lot of the people on both sidee in this platform do have extreme takes and have the “You must agree with me or I will ban you” attitude. I wish it was a bit more diverse, whenever I come on Lemmy it is completely saturated with leftists post. I have nothing against people on the left, its just the fact that content is so obviously saturated with it.

I think its because we aren’t allowed by default to post images, which I completely understand after what happened back a couple months ago. I’ve been using Lemmy for more then 4 months actively but yet I still don’t have permission to post pictures because of the fact that I’m too lazy to even try to get it enabled. This is a major reason why we aren’t seeing a lot of content.

Also, this tends to be mostly a leftist leaning app, so maybe some people get drawn away.

I don’t use Telegram but they don’t enable encryption by default? Last time I used Telegram I needed a phone number still, so, I’d say Signal has always been on top.

Shut up you fat patty. Read my nuts.

Rode Iland

Debian is super easy to use, plus we have AI now at our fingertips which makes it even easier.

But we’re not gay

DRM?

Just use Invidious.

I never felt the same buzz after my first cigarette, it felt like I was fucking drunk after my first smoke lol.

After that I was basically just chasing the dragon, I was smoking about 15-30 cigarettes a day for about 1-2 years. Never again.

Fuck them kids

I just got charged $165 a couple days ago from two yearly subscriptions I totally forgot I had. We need a better solution. The banks should just implement the usage of Virtual Cards like Privacy.com does. It’d be so much more convent for people to cancel subscriptions, if they’re allowed to have multiple different virtual cards that they can easily toggle on or off.

Why don’t the banks do this?

Maybe this is just me but I used to LOVE fast food, my fat ass would DoorDash Dairy Queen almost everyday during the pandemic. Ended up gaining 50lbs after I had just reached my goal for losing 100lbs-120lbs. I’m 210 now but I miss being around 170. (used to be 300 a couple years ago)

I can say now that I don’t eat fast food or Doordash anymore mostly because I feel like I’m eating micro plastic fake meat (may not be entirely true but maybe you know what I mean)

While I understand the concern that allowing one such mod could set a precedent, each mod’s impact should be evaluated on its own merits and within the context of the platform’s guidelines. Indeed, many mods may be considered ‘stupid’ or ‘useless’ by some, but they nonetheless find an audience.

Is the existence of an ‘ignored setting’ truly sufficient to warrant a ban, or does that reflect a broader issue around community standards and governance?

Sealioning is often a tactic used to derail conversations, but that’s not my intent here. I genuinely want to explore the community standards that dictate mod removals. If you find that pseudo-intellectual, perhaps it’s because the questions themselves are inherently complex and require intellectual discussion.

Fair enough, you’re not obligated to partake in a more nuanced discussion. But make no mistake, the essence of a public forum is to invite varying opinions, including those that go beyond surface-level judgments. If that’s not a conversation you’re interested in, you’re free to step aside. But don’t misinterpret my thoroughness as desperation.

Your point about ‘ethics in game journalism’ isn’t actually the focus of my argument. I’m more interested in discussing what kinds of content should be considered unacceptable to the point of removal. This is all about understanding community standards and how a platform should be governed.

As for asking people to go to the main post, my intent is to centralize the discussion for everyone’s benefit. It allows for a more structured, in-depth conversation. This isn’t about pushing a ‘Why can’t we all just get along’ agenda, but rather, understanding the guidelines that govern our interactions. If you find that to be tired rhetoric, perhaps we’re looking at different aspects of a complex issue.

Your point is well-taken, but it’s also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I’m fully aware that the mod’s author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it’s about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I’m interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.

While it’s true the platform has the right to refuse hosting certain content, the point at issue is whether that decision should be made on subjective opinions like ‘dumb trash,’ or if a more balanced approach should be taken. We’re discussing the principles of platform moderation, not just the convenience of downloading a mod elsewhere.