Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.
Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.
I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It's quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism [1], which I personally espouse.
[…] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.
Policing speech is incompatible with the freedom of speech.
[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]
I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like "I wont allow you into my place of business". I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that's damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.
I don't understand the relevance of including the age in the headline. To me, it reads like the general counsel was objecting the access given to the DOGE rep because they are 23 years old. Yet, from what I can see, the article doesn't seem to outline any such objection.
I think a distinction can be drawn between this and what Australia is reported to have done. Imo, this is an example of social intolerance, and I'd argue that there is a sharp distinction between that and policing behavior through the use of governmental force. So, I don't see this excerpt as being a supportive argument for Australia's new law; I see it as being an example of how the issue can be handled socially.
[…] it doesn’t remove admins from the equation and users still have to choose an instance to be associated with […]
I think that's a fair point! At any rate, I do agree with you in that I think that users should be completely portable for a truly sustainable federated service.
Ha, yeah, I got annoyed with having to tie a knot on another friendship bracelet I made every time that I wanted to wear it (plus the knot was uncomfortable for me to feel when wearing it), so I decided to just buy a pack of generic clasps and tied them on. Though, I've found through use that they're honestly not the best designed clasps — the opening for the clasp is annoyingly small to fit the ring into, the opening is at an inconvenient angle to easily use for a bracelet (though maybe they're designed for necklaces, I'm not sure), and the spring is a bit too strong to easily pull back with one hand (when attaching a bracelet onto another wrist, one really only has one free hand to work the clasp). But they're better than nothing 😜
It could be done without having to clone all data though. Reddit is hosted by AWS and their data is distributed on multiple servers, so replace AWS by a bunch of people like you and me providing disk space for the data and tada, you can decentralized the database and just give people access to interacting with it directly (through code) or via various front-ends that people would create. […]
If I understand you correctly, there isan open issue for Lemmy for an, I think, similar idea of co-hosting communities.
[…] they’re always using the same credentials no matter the website they use and no matter the website they can interact with everything that ever happened on the servers, no one has the power to prevent users from seeing some of the transactions that happened (no admins) because the website they use are just a front used to simplify interaction with the servers. […]
Hm, IIUC, this is one of Bluesky's issues that the linked blog post was pointing out — if joining the network requires one to mirror all existing data, it makes it prohibitively expensive for anyone to spin up a server to join the network if the size of the network is enormous.
Why not use their names?