• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • I dunno about the code. But, they’re definitely pushing their agenda here on Lemmy.

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s the only true negative aspect of Lemmy that I’ve noticed since I joined.

    Everything here is pretty good. The users are mostly cool. Content is not high in quantity, yet, but it’s decent quality.

    Lemmy has one real, true problem, tankies. They’re dishonest, they manipulate content, they brigade posts, they’re a cancer. They have no home in legitimate link aggregation.

    If it is true that they “built” Lemmy, it was only to get away from everyone who shunned them and forced them to find a safe place. And now they’re mad that people who aren’t deranged lunatics arrived in their safe place.


  • Okay. Finally, after a month here, I’ll bite.

    Who said it was built by tankies? I’m not saying it wasn’t. But, afaik, ActivityPub was developed by W3C.

    Are they tankies? They don’t strike me as tankies, but I’ve been wrong before. People keep saying the Fediverse was built by tankies, and I guess I’m missing some history, because as far as I can tell, there may have been some tankies, but it doesn’t seem built by tankies.

    Even now, Lemmygrad is small. They’re annoying as fuck. And they’re pervasive on Lemmy. But, it’s not like there’s a lot of them.

    So, if anyone feels like bringing me up to speed on the history of the Fediverse, I’m extremely eager to learn.





  • Ohthereyouare@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.world[META] So... about the bots
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m more annoyed they’re intermingled. The small userbase here isn’t posting enough to fill a feed, but the bots do make things weird.

    If you’re in a news community, politics, tech space, etc. it can be pretty annoying to have both bots and users posting. Maybe if it was a news community that was only bots or no bots, that would be an improvement.











  • Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.

    Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.

    One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.



  • Lol, I’m a scumbag?

    You spend all day posting sketchy ass news from sketchy ass websites that have sensational, nonsense headlines.

    This is serious shit, not your play place. The use of cluster munitions and the US’ decision to send them are very important, very real things that are happening.

    I don’t have an opinion, and haven’t expressed one here on the use of cluster munitions. My opinion is that you’re a spamming misinformation spreader whose @ pops up in my feed 30 times a day.


  • Why is telesureenglish the only news site on earth covering this?

    Because, the UN didn’t “reject” anything.

    “Accordingly, (Guterres) does not want cluster bombs to continue to be used on the battlefield,” Farhan Haq added.

    Wtf is Farhan Haq? The deputy spokesman?

    The UN didn’t say a word. Guterres hasn’t said a word. A deputy spokesman said Guterres said “he does not want them”.