There was an interesting paired poll done, asking about federation with Threads and federation with Tumblr.

66% of people were wary of or actively opposed federating with Threads. Fewer than 20% were wary of or actively opposed federating with Tumblr.

It’s not “defederate from every corporate player”. It’s passing this message on to Meta:

Then perhaps make the opt-out process better and easier? Requiring people who want to opt out to sign into a completely different service and then manually delete messages fully qualifies as “obnoxious”.

(Incidentally, my issue is the other direction. I don’t want my content over on Reddit. I don’t have a Reddit account. I’ve never had a Reddit account. I don’t ever want to have a Reddit account. And, get this, I don’t want my stuff showing up on Reddit.)

“Other people do this obnoxious thing so it’s OK if we do this obnoxious thing” isn’t the moral killing point you seem to think it is.

Regarding “Reddit users have no control over the mirror”. I’d argue that they do have a way to delete the content from Lemmy and it’s quite simple. Any user that has been mirrored by alien.top needs to do the following:

When Google and company do “opt-out” features that people are forced into using unless they manually opt-out (usually with long and convoluted procedures that aren’t front and centre in the docs), they are (rightly) excoriated for it.

Thankfully you don’t have long and convoluted procedures to opt out…

• Sign up via the portal to take over the bot account.
• Login to the instance using the password provided.
• Delete all their posts.

… Oops.

Rethink this if you don’t want really serious backlash. This is almost the textbook case of how not to do features.

It’s like the slavish old “www.” nonsense back in the day. It will go away over time.

https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/modlog/view?target=1685058

Modlog says you don’t have any moderation actions against you.

There’s also a link in your profile so you can see all the moderation actions taken against you anywhere.

Is this the new version of “the lurkers support me in email”?

Yes. Some people are beyond hope. Therefore we shouldn’t bother with empathy with all people. This is exactly how logic works. Yes.

But yes, indeed, some people are beyond hope. It’s why I won’t bother engaging with you further. (Guess where you just got categorized…)

You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.

Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.

That “slippery slope” is absolutely vital to slither down if you want to formulate public policy.

If you don’t understand why people mistrust “big pharma” or “big government” or “big [sobriquet]” and reflexively dismiss anything that involves them, you cannot formulate public policy that will be effective.

Very rarely do people say “I’m going to dismiss centuries of scientific progress for this quack cure” without a reason. It’s maybe not a reason you agree with. It’s maybe not a reason reality agrees with. But you know what it might be? It might be a reason that traces back to how “big [sobriquet]” has acted toward such people in the past, often persistently over a long period of time, that has led to that breakdown in trust. In short: you (as in the beneficiaries of the status quo and “big [sobriquet]”, directly or indirectly) may be at least partially historically culpable in the opposition you now face.

Now I get it: accepting that you yourself are partially culpable for “irrational” opposition is a bitter elixir to swallow, but if you don’t take that first step toward understanding, you can’t take the second step to correcting the problem. And the problem will continue to fester and take root until, oh, I don’t know, something utterly fucking insane happens and a million of your fellow citizens die in a public health disaster because half your population doesn’t trust the very institutions that were needed to prevent said disaster.

So maybe you should learn to enjoy sliding down slippery slopes. Or, you know, die in the next easily-preventable pandemic. Like a million of your fellow citizens (assuming you’re American: insert your own numbers for your own country if not) did in the current one.

Not all people can be persuaded by “connected knowing” (not a big fan of this terminology), but many can be (over time).

NOBODY, however, who can’t be persuaded by “connected knowing” will be persuaded by “separate learning”, so I’m not sure what your point here is.

In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.

Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.

Apparently you care enough to comment.

Oh, I didn’t find Linux in 2004. I switched over to it permanently then.

That would be the concealed Ponzi scheme I alluded to above.

That would probably be why you’re having difficulties finding anarchists on Mastodon. “If you want your boomerang to come back well first you’ve got to throw it.”

2004? Nah. I was nearly 40.