The nice thing is we aren’t really “competing” so to speak. I definitely want lemmy to grow, but the community can be a .0001% chunk of the internet and I would be totally happy as long as it were a kind, useful, and fun chunk

It was certainly fun back in the day. I was in middle school when I noticed everyone around me starting to use it and it was a bit of a mixed bag for me… at that point not everything was social media so it wasn’t such a hellscape and was a bunch of fun, but even then I think it had a negative impact on me, my friends, and our social lives. I don’t know what it was like before, but seeing that a popular kid had a huge number like 100 notifications on their Facebook could not have been healthy—I don’t think that kids need analytics on how socially successful they are

Geez it’s just so incredibly sad to me that facebook has survived this long and even THRIVED while probably being the worst version of what they do, and being the most evil doing it

They probably don’t need to make a whole platform to do this, though. Couldn’t they just slurp the data right out of ActivityPub without making Threads? Either way, I’m dismayed that meta is managing to YET AGAIN convince people that this time they’ll be good

Now I only upvote in comments so they’re super public.

!UPVOTE

Unfortunately they could just spin up a lemmy instance on some anonymous server somewhere and do that anyway. I don’t want them in here, but they can certainly already pull the data up. To me that necessitates some form of anonymizing protocol, or even a form of shared encryption making it so you can’t simply pull data in, you need to be invited or allowed into the federation.

Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.

If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.

Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.

Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?

This is the best take I’ve seen in this thread so far. It’s an issue of compelled speech, not of this or that demographic or ideology of the client or service. I’m not trying to dog whistle here, I hate that any business would exercise this in a hateful way, but another example of the reverse would be compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake. Obviously no person should be compelled to say what they don’t believe, regardless of the level of asshattery they dabble in.