They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they "can" do. It's rather their public announcement about what they "will" do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don't even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.
I don't think so. It's probably what keeps it small and more personal. There is also the notion of responsibility: if a person I invite causes trouble, it's potentially on me. Maybe not on the first infraction, but if one invites 20 spammers/cryptobros/venturecapitalists, it's reasonable to block the inviter too.
I'm not arguing one way or another (that's not my decision anyway), but I can understand why they do this.
Incidentally the same labels make Gmail fundamentally incompatible with the way IMAP works causing lots of weirdness whenever you use any standard email client not specifically designed for Gmail.
At first I really wanted to say "good, now they are treated the same as the Lebanese people living alongside them" but no, that definitely isn't "good" by any real measure of this word. I hope this whole tragedy will stop soon.
This is equally true for almost any game ever sold, including physical ones. You only ever own a license that specifies what you can and cannot do with the game. The difference is in what this license is tied to, for example either a physical copy of a given game or an account that can be remotely deactivated taking away all your games. In GOG's case once you grab the installer, the game license cannot be easily forcibly revoked, just as with the physical copy.
I'd even argue public votes can deescalate some situations, for example where both sides of a relatively heated discussion can see they vote each other up. They don't necessarily agree but they appreciate the other side's points.
As for the transparency, it's not possible to list all the votes of a user, one rather needs to list votes on a given post. To profile a given user the attacker would need to cross-reference the data from all posts and comments which is computationally infeasible, both client-side and server-side.
On Kbin the votes are 100% public for anyone. I've migrated to Lemmy after the frequent server issues with Kbin and I miss that part dearly. It was very easy to gauge whether someone was engaging in a good or bad faith discussion by checking the votes within a discussion. That being said, personally I'm very light on my downvotes, and I can see how someone more trigger-happy would see it as worrying. Personally I see the vote transparency as healthy though.
Probably no, not in this specific form, that being said I don't want to compare one tragedy to another. There are lots of disgusting parts of the human history, and that's certainly one of them.
Frankly that's something I do not understand. Why this single specific word? We have dozens of terrible offensive words. Why this specific one is considered so bad we cannot even talk about it directly, even when merely discussing it? I would think discussing it and not directing it at someone would be pretty reasonable. As with every single other word.
They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they "can" do. It's rather their public announcement about what they "will" do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don't even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.