• 8 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moeOPtoAsk Burggit!@burggit.moe•Tagging standard?
    0·
    1 year ago

    You seem to already do tagging the same as beastclub.

    [Equine] title “credit the artist at the end of your title”

    [Cute] title (AI)

    I’m not talking some dictatorial standard for every post. Just an agreed upon format for those who do tagging and want it to be consistent. Like, let’s take a vote or something.

  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moetoFunny@burggit.moe•privacy protip
    2·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know about your DNS provider farming queries through your search engine (I guess by fetching the content of the visible results?) but I do know that if you have search suggestions on then everything you type is sent to your search engine and recorded before you even hit enter.

    Supposedly DuckDuckGo doesn’t retain this data but I’ve been out of the loop so that may have changed at some point. I’ve heard conflicting stories about their privacy and I haven’t dug into it yet.

    For DNS providers though you can check out these: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/dns/#recommended-providers

  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moetosh.itjust.works Main Community@sh.itjust.works•Hey could we defederate with exploding-heads.com/English
    44·
    1 year ago

    Most arguments are based on belief rather than facts. We rarely do the research and testing ourselves and instead just trust whomever we already agree with and is considered an expert.

    Problem is that’s on all sides of the political spectrum. Everyone thinks their experts are right and everyone else is crazy or deluded.

    The way to resolve this and find out what’s actually true isn’t by shutting down what one disagrees with, but by engaging in debates and discussion with each other, and pointing out the holes in each other’s reasoning and tests.

  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moetosh.itjust.works Main Community@sh.itjust.works•Hey could we defederate with exploding-heads.com/English
    144·
    1 year ago

    People rarely know what the paradox of tolerance really is and just use it as a cudgel to shut down any argument they disagree with.

    The creator of the idea himself said

    "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

    But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument"

  • livixPmfOQRj@burggit.moetoAnnouncements@burggit.moe•Welcome to Burggit! We're not what you think we are!
    2·
    1 year ago

    Can we have some clarification on what’s allowed in regards to “hate speech”?

    On one hand:

    “Burggit aims to be a platform for Free Thought and Expression. Our goal is to have a place where people can freely and respectfully express their ideas/opinions without fear of being censored because they decided to use the wrong terms/wordings.”

    “While we’re fine with people posting offensive speech and imagery, we won’t allow them to use their right to “Free Speech” as a weapon against the overall health of the platform. Threatening, Berating, Dogpiling, Doxxing and otherwise being complete and total assholes to other users will not be tolerated.”

    And in the rules:

    “Minimal Restrictions on Content/Speech.”

    “Do not out right harass other users. Opposing opinions and potentially offensive speech is fine, but don’t go out of your way to endlessly berate someone. This includes users of other instances.”

    But on the other hand:

    “Anything is allowed here as long as it’s not anything illegal in The Netherlands”

    “No illegal content under Netherlands law”

    Looking it up, the hate speech laws are:

    "The Dutch penal code prohibits both insulting a group (article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the penal code is as follows:

    Article 137c: “He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.”

    Article 137d: “He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.”"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#Netherlands

    Sorry I don’t mean to rock the boat by getting all technical. My personal belief is that no speech should be restricted or regulated Except calls to harm someone physically, and/or calls to prevent someone from doing what they need to survive. (I.e. Telling a crowd to surround someone’s home, preventing them from working and buying food, etc.)

    What’s your consensus for terms like t–p, n----r, f----t etc?

    I don’t use these terms (except t–p because come on.) But I’m wondering what’s allowed here.