You might have been expecting the response you got here, or you might not have. I know I learnt more about nazi/hate speech dogwhistles in my first few weeks as a Lemmy admin than I had learnt in all my life up to that point 😅.

I also know in those early days there were people worried my instance was a “free speech” instance because I wanted open conversations instead of bans. Mostly I think I didn’t appreciate how big of a problem it was, and for sure I had people registered on my instance expecting it was a “free speech” instance. There are people out there looking for a place to spout their hate and many think Lemmy is the place for it because it’s advertised as censorship resistant.

Please know that there is a strong belief (among both nazis and anti-nazis) that indicating a place as being able to speak your mind is a dog whistle for allowing hate speech. Over time if you find you aren’t attracting the right kind of members, you may need to tweak your wording. But also please know that the idea of supporting people to be better community members instead of flat out banning people does work for many members, because many people just don’t realise that what they are saying is harmful. Some people will be operating in bad faith though, and it’s typically the same small number of people that keep getting banned. Because you have open registrations, these users are more likely to come to your instance.

It’s also important to understand that the Fediverse is full of users that have felt unsafe on mainstream social media. Your rules against hate speech need to be strictly enforced, of you’ll find yourself isolated in the Fediverse as no one will want to federate with you.

I feel like I have quite some learning to go on cooking the perfect pizza!

I never considered that a short sharp cook would be better than longer at a lower heat. I already only cook the pizzas 3-5 mins.

Hmm, maybe I will need to learn how to hack my oven.

My oven has a pizza mode 😆. Surely at 450 Celsius the pizza is just gonna come out black… I think pizza mode is more like 260 heated from underneath.

My oven can get up to (and past) this temp. Unfortunately the door locks so I can’t get a preview of Satan’s home (it only does it for pyrolytic cleaning).

Thanks! I knew the comment section would have my back.

What’s up? Not Grafana. I did docker compose pull on the stack (without version pinning) then recreated the containers, and now it’s fucked. Or maybe it’s not because the logs are fine but it only serves the web app but 404s on any connection to the Grafana backend.

Now I need to do some investigation into any recent changes to try to work out what’s going wrong.

Not sure what the general thought is around here, but I see no issue with taking a single day off school for a rare opportunity to spend quality time with your family watching your national team in a world cup match, if they generally have high attendance.

I used to go for a dashboard like this, but one day I realised none of the stats are actually helpful for anything and stopped using it.

Just one team working on Teams, and they are doing their best to make it worse.

I for one encourage them, it apparently needs to be even worse before my work will consider changing

TBH this sounds to me like something specifically intended to not be an Australian-like solution, which they could have copied.

I am not sure what’s required of a bare bones Linux install (general computing device) that has access to a package manager (application store)!

Yeah perhaps. Or that “account” doesn’t really need to bw what we think of as an account.

Could it be covered, but they would still have to ask? It says if it wasn’t done at setup it has to ask, so perhaps an account-less OS would still be expected to ask for an age and provide it when asked?

Nah I don’t think it does. You don’t really get that because the intent of a law is important in court cases.

Mobile phones are specifically covered:

(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

Windows doesn’t ask at install, and also this law requires them to ask for already set up accounts too.

This will make it a lot more visible.

Nah it seems it doesn’t apply to physical devices (except general computing devices as mentioned elsewhere)

(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:

(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.

(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.

(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your switch or gas pump isn’t included. But I see nothing in the law that clarifies servers or any CLI only interface, or even any OS that doesn’t have accounts.

Where do you quote “reasonable” from? The only part of the law with that word is referring to a different, already existing law (or the bit about reasonable technical limitations causing the wrong signals sent in the API).

Ok I did it, I read the full text of the law, and you’re right.

The existence of Linux or anything not big tech and the broad range of options within seems to be ignored. Does a CLI only OS need to provide a GUI for its “accessible interface”?

On a different note, I did see the last point here:

(f) This title does not apply to any of the following:

(1) A broadband internet access service, as defined in Section 3100.

(2) A telecommunications service, as defined in Section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(3) The delivery or use of a physical product.

(3) seems to imply the OS that runs your microwave isn’t included.

I think the next bit from the article I didn’t quote explains that:

“(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user.” The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and “at least 18 years of age.”

I think the idea is that you would say that under 16s can’t use social media. Then you’d enforce this not with the horrendous Australian strategy of having everyone IDed, but instead you would enforce it by having an API that websites and apps could use that would tell them the age of the user.

So basically:

• Parent sets up device for kid and sets their age.
• Kid tries to download Facebook app
• Gets denied because they are under age
• Kid tries to go to facebook website instead
• Website sends request to browser for user’s age, browser asks Windows (or whatever OS) for age and provides this age back to Facebook
• Facebook denies access because user is under age

Windows might already have parental controls within Windows, but it’s the ability for apps and websites to know the age (or in this case age range) that is the important part.

I much prefer this than handing over ID.

Sorry but I don’t think the article text backs up the title?

The claim is that they have to enforce age verification, but the quoted law says:

Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

Doesn’t this just mean it needs to ask for an age at setup, so e.g. parents can set it up with an age and they can automatically be restricted?

I don’t see anywhere actual verification is required, if you’re setting it up yourself then just lie?

Honestly, this sounds like my preferred path if we are gonna do anything.

Make sure you visit in a browser aince apps wouldn’t have implemented an in development feature.