In the past week alone we have seen hundreds of new forums mushroom up, so many that its been hard to keep track of, so i suggest a wiki page listing all the new forums with one or two sentence description next to them, as opposed to just scrolling through f/newforums one can one look at this wiki and find the forums that interest them. This wiki should be editable by everyone of course.
"What about the forums tab that already exists?"
"Whats wrong with f/newforums?"
Plus this is the kind of thing thats not possible on reddit i.e. a mass of people collaborating on a wiki together that benefits everyone.
]]>Monero:
44ykgfq9TTNit8jr3FzeCKWZrdGM237fNAC3Ctaup3WF5jJ5JzYqnvrA16HNgxK53LWaqPHpB3M5HEdcNzVA8RSyDMFQ5q5
Paypal:
ziq-raddle (at) protonmail (.com)
]]>Pretty sure I'm whitelisted, so I don't know what causes this issue, since I thought that vpn would be fine if the user is whitelisted.
Any help would be appreciated
]]>Here is the full paste of what I tried to submit.
If .vn is indeed blocked, can it be unblocked? Or could there be an explanation of why it's blocked? I'm guessing people have spammed links with this top-level domain.
]]>Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities or who are perceived to have disabilities. Ableism characterizes persons as defined by their disabilities and as inferior to the non-disabled. On this basis, people are assigned or denied certain perceived abilities, skills, or character orientations.
I have seen this cited as if it includes or implies a list of banned words which negatively describe a person's intelligence (such as dumb, idiot, stupid, stupidly, fool), and as if it does not matter whether a specific use of such words fits the above definition of ableism or not. I didn't anticipate this interpretation and the inconsistency between the way it is applied and the text in the Terms of Service confuses me.
I'm also confused because I am almost certain that the moderators have seen and ignored uses of these words, particularly when used in a self-deprecating way, as I have seen other users with such words in their usernames. My own username (u/BrainFarmReject) is intended to be silly and does not include any of these words, but it has basically the same meaning; did I violate the terms of service by creating this account?
The main purpose of this post is to make this request: can a section of the Terms of Service or What falls under Raddle's Content Policy be updated to more clearly communicate what sort of language is considered ableist and how a user can expect the rules to be applied in such cases? I think this would prevent some from breaking the rule and reduce confusion whenever a warning is given for it.
]]>the internet is for being petty lol
]]>We're in the process of moving to a new dedicated server, so the donation covered those extra costs for the month.
]]>So anyway I was quite confused as over the weekend was quite busy and missed like entirely the whole discussion that happened here. Until I came back and saw I got tagged a couple times and at first I couldn't tell what was really going on as everything was deleted so I took it at face value that this person who got banned was just some troll. That was basically my awareness of the discussion at the time I wrote /u/ziq to apologise as it seemed I might have caused them trouble.
Anyway so now I've read the whole shit in /f/meta that is now not deleted anymore and first of all the user formerly known as arsonal all of the stuff I saw that they wrote was like pretty well considered and their writing style makes my brain melt in a particular way so I'm pretty sure I know who it is and they aren't just a troll(and are quite worthwhile if you manage to understand them). Let me say that I get why ziq reacted the way they did to a new unknown account. and like to the person formerly known as /u/arsonal4 I think it probably would have helped your case to use an account that is like older and not just some new account with a sus name. in terms of being able to talk about the subject without setting off alarm bells you get me.
However seeing as one of the incarnations of arsonal addressed what they were saying to me, I'd be quite interested to see what it was, assuming its technically possible. This is my first request. I'm not even saying undelete it for everyone to see it necessarily, but I would be quite interested to see what the person had addressed to me for my own curiosity.
Anyway when I saw that ziq had deleted some posts and also the /f/direct_action forum, at first I wasn't really going to question them about it at all, because its their server and they can do whatever the hell they want.
For me it was really not clear what the admins here consider to be 'promoting terrorism'. Have been linking to direct action claims and manifestos for a while now without any complaints, also at least one of the stuff that ziq deleted was posted by one of the other admins which i found pretty funny tbh. I figured and still think tbh that simply sharing a link which contains a manifesto that 'promotes terrorism' isn't actually promoting terrorism. Its not like I'm like oh yea that's so dope people should do that more. However such publications are obviously of interest and many actions go ignored or are reported really badly by mainstream media. The main reason I'm here is 'education' or consumption, production and sharing of information, so I think its hard to reasonably state that the act of sharing a link is 'promoting terrorism' (regardless of the contents). But whatever I don't even want to argue that point. If sharing a link that 'promotes terrorism' is against tos it would be useful to be clear what concretely 'promoting terrorism' is.
So anyway I understand why /u/ziq did what they did because they gave me reasons in private message for why they deleted a bunch of things. Conversations I had with others privately made it clear to me that they don't know the same info I know with regard to that. and as I said to /u/ziq, maybe its a good idea to be completely upfront with people, so as to not confuse or alienate long term users. So that's my second request, I don't really want to say to everyone stuff you said to me privately, and no obviously you don't have to do it, but I (and not only me) think it would be nice if you made it clear to everyone what's happening in your mind in a clear way wrt to this issue. Or at least keep it in mind going forward. I would also again be very interested to see what /u/tequila_wolf or even /u/mofongo have to say about anything here or the other stuff that people said in the other discussion threads here and here I really think this shouldn't be a problem for any of you. You have the admin rights and can do whatever the hell you want and I'm not complaining about that. However. Communicating openly can only help everybody understand why you do those things, which seems like a good thing to me. and I do this pretty much everytime I'm taking moderator action for political reasons, it seems like good practice.
anyway since someone wrote me privately some shit that I feel like is worth discussing publicly separate to any and all requests on the administrators I'm going to quote it in length here(I have obtained permission first lmk if you changed your mind) without attribution and the person attribute themselves if they want. I'm lazy to write my own shit when someone else wrote something good.
Yeah, but I think it's a stretch to say that posting someone's manifesto promoting terrorism means the poster or raddle is promoting terrorism.
I think someone burning down some building as a political action in germany is relevant to f/germany. That manifesto is probably going to have more information about the people who did it and why they did it way earlier than any news report that also gets that information from said manifesto and then compresses the reasoning layed out down to what's already in the police report. "they were leftist extremist terrorists" doesn't really tell you anything. Idk why I'm explaining this, you obviously must have thought sharing this was valuable too.
If hypothetically tomorrow a fascist burns down a gay bar or a planned parenthood and the police go the usual "oh but we don't know if it was a hate crime" route and mainstream media, as always, just copy the police report and someone posted a link here to an archive of the arsonist's, idk, twitter, that confirms without a doubt that this was a premeditated hate crime, I think this would be relevant news that I wouldn't remove (given the correct content warnings and the absence of good news articles that cover this, yadda yadda) and no one would think raddle or the poster is promoting or endorsing terrorism.
So clearly, posting links to someone else's statements about a crime they committed does not mean endorsement. The only difference between this hypothetical arsonist and the arsonists you posted about is that the latter are closer to us politically. That that means we approve of their actions seems to me like too much of a presumption for a solid legal argument. I think ziq is being hypervigilant.
If we applied ziq's reasoning for removing this to other crimes than arson, they'd have to shut down, for example, f/palestine_israel. Israel is committing genocide right now, every public statement of theirs has been promoting violence against palestinians and there is no other party to this "conflict" that hasn't been accused of terrorism or promoting terrorism by israel and its supporters. That also includes journalists, activists, health care workers, the nation of south africa, but we don't even need to got that far: the pflp, whose statements have been linked there, is definitely classified as a terrorist organisation in - I assume - most of the world.
What bothers me is that before this, I thought I knew what I am allowed to post here, which aligned closely with what I'd post here anyway, now I'm uncertain where the line is and also conciously aware that there is one. And that is before I even noticed that f/direct_action is gone, which I did just now because you told me.
I think the presumption that we share the pov of every link we post may change raddle as a link aggregator profoundly and because ziq is unwilling to discuss or explain their actions, it feels like I'm just supposed to pretend like everything is fine and nothing happened or I'm going to be lumped in together with this random person who they have declared a bad faith troll terrorism supporter entrapment person. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
So I guess in light of all the stuff that was said above I guess the last request I have is to give a clear line here on what actually counts as promotion of terrorism. Statements from PFLP, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the ELN, YPG and FARC (to name those which I remember) are all posted here. They are all legally recognised as terrorists at least by some countries. Is posting their own claims for actions also promoting terrorism?
To go in the other direction we also link to horrible shit cops do, what politicians say, they are of course also no strangers to using terror for political ends(or carrying out bombings, arson or killing people). Mainstream media has no problem publishing material like this that also promotes it sometimes. Is sharing that here also 'promoting terrorism'? Or is it only against the TOS to link to stuff regarding actions from people who are politically closer to 'us'?
What about the statements from people in the US who are accused of domestic terrorism because of extremely innocuous shit or nothing at all? Is linking to stuff they say promoting terrorism? This is not only an issue in the US context wrt to the movement to stop cop city, but also Letzte Generation in Germany (a liberal environment group) may also get (or got already?) a similar designation here. I'm pretty sure there are more examples from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and those are just places that come to mind right now. Would linking to stuff any of these groups put out be promotion of terrorism? (these are not rhetorical questions)
Please notice that I'm not even asking that shit got deleted be restored, although I'm not principally against that tbh. I'm asking for a consistent line to follow so that I and other people can assess if we are breaking the tos or not.
So to sum it up, this is my general thoughts which are accompanied by 3 requests as well as an invitation for the others to talk about anything I said here.
Those 3 requests being:
I would like to know /u/arsonal4 said to me in the comment where they tagged me that is deleted that /u/ziq referred to here. even by private message would be cool if you are completely against restoring it completely. (assuming this is possible)
That /u/ziq but also the other admins /u/tequila_wolf and /u/mofongo give clearly their reasons for taking administrative action especially when it involves a pretty large change in terms of how the rules are being applied. (also that I would be interested to see what any of them think as previously stated). I would appreciate that happening with regard to this instance as previously stated, but also that admins keep this in mind for the future too.
That the relevant section of the tos: 'Advocates for arson, bombing and/or killing people.' be changed so that its fully clear what is allowed and what isn't because obviously at the moment its not clear. I think I provided a reasonable starting point for that discussion here. My goal here that people can look at the tos and definitely be sure what it means as clearly we have had some combination of misunderstanding and changing interpretations of what that section of the TOS actually means.
Am not writing to this get under anyone's skin and if anything I asked for or said is a problem, I would love to know why.
I hope that by opening the discussion again on my only account which is hopefully clearly here only in good faith, I can avoid the agitated reactions arsonal got and maybe have a useful discussion about the questions I raised.
Maybe a final quote from Mobb Deep which might also prove helpful:
]]>There's a war going on outside no man is safe from. You could run, but you can't hide forever..
to moderate /f/SnowyAntiCastle for Ice Faction reasons
ty!
]]>My own omission of the username in the title, for two reasons, but it is unavoidable in the body of text. As stated in the previous post, and unlike it is claimed by ziq, I don't really want to debate them. I would like it if they stop abusing mod powers, and they seem unlikely to do that by being reminded directly, so any appeal to them is useless, sames as to any other authority. The second reason is that the editing of the comments mentioning another user's name (in the case of one, without a tag) seems like another tactic of display of force that doesn't represent any sheltering or any attendance to a security concern. So the username omitted in brackets somewhat makes light of that, while respecting the request at face value, as best as possible anyway.
From a charitable point of view, it is possible to understand the editing of my comment right away [not really, and I am not really as charitable as that at the moment, but I am trying to depart from some anger at the moment], but why was the other comment edited unilateraly as well? Is this how it is done? Why couldn't the user have been asked to edit it themself? Was it such an urgent matter where any horizontal relation (not my preferred terms, but can't find a suitable phrasing at the moment) can be bypassed in favour of moderator action?
I will reply to what ziq said quickly, only insofar as it may warrant rebuttal. If they would leave me alone without censoring me on a whim, that is the end of my interaction or even referral to them on any occasion.
After your first comment, you claimed it was your only account and so "shouldn't count as a throwaway". Stop bullshitting you concern troll.
That is a lie you get away with on account of having deleted the comment. It was framed as a question. Also, here's the link to another comment from the previous account. If 4 accounts have been used in the past 24 hours, give or take, is only because bans are made with no reason.
The comment marked from '19 minutes ago' on the archive thread summarizes my position at this point.
You're not. Stop making accounts. Stop making demands of me. Stop trying to force me to debate you about whether I should allow the promotion of arson. Stop pretending your link promoting arson isn't promoting arson. Stop thinking I answer to you in any way or owe you anything.
I am not supposed to make any mention of direct action on raddle? What?
I am not making demands of you. I don't want to debate you. That's the least I would want to do. I rarely ever did so anyway, but in any event I've given up on you altogether. But I still hold this space as one I enjoyed and I am a part of it insofar as I contribute to it. And I don't measure that in your cranky entitled terms, now going full asshole.
That fifth sentence...
Don't do anything, that is the only demand that can be made, because you're not raddle.
The direct action forum is now gone. Congrats.
This is comically manipulative, boss, blaming someone who never even posted or commented on that forum for your own repression.
Reply to ziq done. It is hard right now to put the energy into continuing further, as all effort can be scrapped by another. I enter a place in good faith. I am not a recruiter, I have my own thoughts on, say, going on r/@ to find the good ones, or level critiques, or whatever, and other actions similar to that you can envision, both online and offline, but I figure I'll reserve that to a later time, or maybe never, as generally speaking, I tend to only make an opposition to the actions of others if they are unambiguously harmful (something like live and let live when no threat is incoming). So in this exhausting thread about the 'not letting', so to say, open ended considerations about relationships to places of anhiliation may not get a suitable conversation.
And the way places is always mutable, at least if it is a good place. So it is not a conservativist impulse behind this post. It is me fighting for the space I cherished to be for me too. Especially as the changes seem to lean towards immutability rather than towards livability. This is a fight that isn't new to me. If a generalization can be made from my experience, is that it is usually "won" at my own expense. And while I am not trying to commiserate, given that I cannot detach what I feel even at the most distant state, it really feels quite fucked up. I am getting a bit weary, ever more all possibilities of affinity and interaction are attempted to be destroyed by the same people who type essays about joyful struggle, or anti-leftism, or disorganisational being, or whatever.
(not referring to any specific writing, by the way, but hopefully the gist is understoon, similar thing, every other person is a bureaucrat until it is your turn to call the shots)
Anyway, these latest paragraphs maybe were just giving material for quotes that an dissensitized authoritarian can mock.
About the thing itself, my '19 minutes ago' stance and its sporadic reiteration here still stands. And I figure this very post is quite unproblematic even from the twisted rationale provided. Obviously, I cannot help but feel that other twisted rationales will follow, as that is the typical power tactics, in online forums and elsewhere.
Most of all, it is against erasure, so against these erasures as well. Now that previous accounts were banned on a whim, is this ban evasion? Get the comissariat, they may have an idea on how to handle people like this.
]]>What I had written that couldn't be submitted was as follows:
"This is getting ludicrous. So one can't ask for clarification for a mod power action?
Are you the author of this post?"
How is a post in solidarity with direct action a breach of ToS? A specific post was provided as example, linking what was likely one of those deleted under the ToS breach thing. My comments, questioning the reasons, were deleted as "Entrapment".
How is that so? Is this a place where no mention of direct action can be made except in neutrally biased terms? The linked article had neither instructions nor an explicit call to arson (if we get into whether strong phrases of revolt are an implicit endorsement would be a bad sign in my view, whatever the outcome of that nitpick, as the avoidance of this nebulous weaponization of security to turn it into legalist fear is kind of the issue here).
]]>Also they asked to moderate it here https://raddle.me/f/SnowyAntiCastle/184549
]]>It presents a huge security-culture problem for everyone on the site when these people treat raddle like an ancap market, so I'm going to have to stop offering .onion support. I don't see any other way, this has been going on for months now and like clockwork they post the same fucked up shit as soon as I unban 127.0.0.1.
The load from the tor network also causes the whole site to slow down to the point where I can't help loathing the Tor project. The Tor network uses more of our bandwidth than the entire USA.
]]>https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/177393/anyone-have-a-spare-riseup-invite-lying-around
The thread is [here](https://raddle.me/f/AskRaddle/177393/anyone-have-a-spare-riseup-invite-lying-around)
https://raddle.me/177393
or Thread [here](https://raddle.me/177393)
I knew all that but what I only recently noticed is that for any raddle URL you can embed links without the https://raddle.me
part & it will still work:
The thread is [here](/f/AskRaddle/177393/anyone-have-a-spare-riseup-invite-lying-around)
/177393
or Thread [here](/177393)
& it doesn't apply to just threads or posts, so you can drop links like /f/AskRaddle
, /wiki#legal-requests
, & beyond. This has a bunch of advantages I'm sure people who've been doing this for a while have already realized, but now more of us can play around with it.