It’s one thing if a person has a distaste for musk, but destroying someones property (a Tesla) after they buy a car, which seems to be a common trend. There are people that buy cars that probably don’t pay attention to politics and have no idea about Elon Musk, but just know that Trump is president. I just feel if you’re trying to target Musk, that isn’t really winning you any favors destroying the cars that people bought.

The action of beating of any person based strictly on their race alone is hopefully unpopular, but the teacher’s actions probably (I hadn’t read the article yet.) was not due to the students race but the maga hat they were wearing, and publicly displaying. (I seen this story too many times I just know thee’s a good percent chance that could be the reasoning.)

and also what that hats movement meant to that teacher probably had an impact on the teachers actions. Their feeling against the maga movement and everything maga stands against, brought it out of this teacher.

How can Lemmy or Mastodon become more centralized like email, if it is the users who are signing up to the top largest servers. Users naturally might be attracted to servers with higher user counts.

I don’t think Trump would pick a safe place for you to be deported to because as I seen from some of the statements from the organization and supporters, if they were to deport someone this administration may consider them as some of the worse.

That’s what I was getting at when I was saying “deported to some country Trump had happened to pick for you.” So even if you know of places that might be safe places to get deported to, that doesn’t mean that’s where the Trump Administration might deport someone.

Someone should take this stance to the supreme court or to a judge because this just screams obviously, as a 1st amendment violation since it is coming directly from the government, rather then strictly from private a social media platform.

compared to everything else besides email, 50 or above looks good when you don’t have as much competition aiming to get to 100%

If users go to the defualt server, while things are federated, Mastodon and Lemmy already did their service by using activity pub.

It just seems like possibly we need to more so, educate users why going to the largest server could be a negative thing potentially leading to a monopoly. On one note, Lemmy.world isn’t a defualt server, while lemmy.ml was. So at least Lemmy is doing better in that regard while Mastodon.social, a default/official server from the original devs of Mastodon, could prove being even more concentrating them the trend on Lemmy where users might g to lemmy.world.

Ideally I’d like to see all types of different servers have user activity, but with a low user count, to make this more liley to happen the word about Fediverse needs to be advertised and spread around. So more people can discover it.

I feel like somehow advertising it at local libraries would acually help it go up in discoverability on poster or billboards etc.

If Elon Musk says he’s a Christian been awhile but remember something where Elon was looking into Christianity, the Bible probally says something about having empathy for others. Is he one of those “sinners” that claim to be Christian?

If you completely repeal section 230, this would ultimately make moderating Nazi content on a Lemmy instance illegal, since if something illegal doesn’t get taken down but others do said Fediverse servers would be looked at as a publisher not a platform. So by “getting your revenge on Facebook and X” in this way you are only downgrading your selves in the process.

What’s considered an acceptable score on this? After looking at Lemmy and Mastodon barely making half the score.

There’s also character ai among others. Status AI isn’t exactly the first “AI Social Media”.

As an aromantic person, under the ‘a’ umbrella of LGBTQ+ I think if parents can prevent kids from just simply exploring their attractions or their gender identity can be a form of suppression. If the kid wanted to explore it on their own, it’s different as if the thing was forced on them. In a way Christianity, had been forced on millions to an extent. If you’re following the law just to protect yourself legally with some decisions you may make for your child I guess that might be more acceptable then forcing a religious Bible that we don’t know is actually real or not.

In the case of this ruling, I just… think that this is based on a book written at one point of time by a group of people. A fairy tale, and used as an excuse for parents to suppress people they don’t want to be seen or to exist. Whether they are doing it in legit hate or whether they truly believe in what the Bible is saying in the Christian sense is true, they are really just suppressing these groups of people. Intentional or not, they are suppressing them from existing and expressing themselves.

I had a similar issue a few years ago when attempting to upload a video on Mastodon but the server wouldn’t accept the video at all. Not sure why.

Audio should be there if the video is. Check the original video and that there is audio. If there is could be a codecs issue. Might want to ensure your video is using widely supported codecs. Or double check codecs the Lemmy may support. In this case, could be related specifically to an audio codec.

The fact that Trump is testing that if this is legal at all is weird. You shouldn’t be able to “deport” a born native person to another country for having an opinion.

Sure prison in general is not perfect, but wouldn’t you rather be prisoned in the country you are born in and not deported to some country Trump had happened to pick for you?

Little free libraries can be pretty neat, when someone actually does maintain one. Adds some privacy protections to individuals since people don’t need a library card (not that I know of) to take a book.

Then someone needs to bring it to the supreme court asap, because that is taking it too far since it’s clearly violating some laws. WHy are people just letting this happen, when it seems like the law should be on ones side? The Trump adminstr, is picking and choosing what laws it wants in its own favor to enforce, or ignore.

One thing I would add to this is, this is a conservative community, so if a user is not a conservative leaning individual, why waste ones time there calling them various names or terms within said community? I get that you might disagree with a post, and you have the right to voice your ons.

Now if this person was posting this on a community unrelated to this, I could see people getting upset over that there. But this community is dedicated to conservative content. If you feel like you have to personally attack people in a community, maybe it’s just better to just let it be. Or to just report it if you feel that it’s justified to do so.

That is how taxes work for nonprofits, if something is public and no profit, they get grants and tax deductible donations.

I just don’t get why someone has to go so deep into it and monitor the specific items someone buys with food stamps. If you’re concern with the amount amount of money that goes into food stamps, I think that’s what you should concern over, not the specific item itself that someone decides to buy. If someone can get candy or soda for cheap, why should it matter if they decide to get that specific item?

If taxes were very very expensive I could understand going after the amount of money going into it generally, but worrying over the item they get over the actual amount you are spending just seems very targeting of individuals.

I don’t know if they can legally deport someone just for saying certain things about the country. 1st amendment sounds like it should protect against this. Someone need to drag this to the supreme court before legally innocent people get targeted and deported. and if someone is a citizen and never traveled where would they deport them to?

Personally I do buy nutritional food, from broccoli, to lettuce, to blueberries, to salmon. I’m not the type however, to take away from others just because I might not decide to participate in buying something.

I’m not necessarily defending myself here, but more so anyone else other than me, who is using food stamps.

If you’re concerned about the amount people spend of “your money” with food stamps that’s one thing. But in a way targeting *what they buy could be almost like a 1st amendment issue on what people use their food stamps on after they already have the stamps.

This is a way of getting what you want without asking or negotiating a solution or compromise or anything. Not being nice to University. See how that plan works out for you long term.