They were complaining the blockee could write any public response even an impersonal one.

Doxxing & other issues likely already violate rules & I don’t see how that would happen, since we don’t reveal much about ourselves. I don’t see how defamation would happen without a real identity. Harassment likely wouldn’t fit the legal definition: at most, some call being incredibly annoying harassment.

I’ve seen threatening replies I didn’t report (because I consider online threats vacant hyperbole) result in bans.

I disagree that all content on lemmy should be treated as strictly public.

Acknowledging your disagreement, it’s observable fact that it is. It’s readable to the public & open to public input. That input may be more concerned with responding to ideas (eg, as a criticism or corroboration) and presenting that to the public reader than for communicating specifically to the author of the text that inspired it. I certainly read primarily for content & ideas and respond accordingly like I’m trying to show the public something. Anyone can respond.

Comments I release to the public I treat as the public’s & not really mine. If that’s not for you, then I don’t think you’re identifying a technical limitation but a disagreement with design goals: the design of lemmy makes much sense for public discussion.

With private, direct messages, you may have a better argument.

Nah, in a public discussion, you/authorship isn’t the primary concern, the text & interest of the public is primary. Whether you want to see that text is your liberty. The liberty of the public, however, is to likewise decide for themselves whether to read the text no matter who authors it regardless of petty disagreements between authors. Your disagreements aren’t ours.

Just like in offline public discussions, no one should decide whether the public gets to see a marvelous takedown of text you happened to write just because you disagree with the author of that spectacular takedown.

Because neener-neener & too bad so sad?

Seriously, though, you shouldn’t get to decide for everyone who to censor. Just because you don’t want to see it doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. That would be tyranny of the overly sensitive.

Does that mean you don’t believe in empathy?

Sincerely believing in empathy as a guide doesn’t mean only when it’s convenient. Empathy isn’t supposed to be convenient.

For clarification, I’m not claiming he deserves empathy.

I feel bad that piece of shit procreated.

cosmic karma at work

just-world fallacy & Hindu karma doesn’t work that way

That unnecessary image of text could have been accessible, quoted text that supports searches and is fault tolerant against image breaks.

possible to be empathetic about the manner of his death and the suffering

What would that the serve? Seems like a waste of emotion.

I’d like to tell people “soy aquí” is perfectly grammatical and means you’re identifying with a place like “I’m the Earth”. It could be figurative language or science fiction.

We swim in the ocean, and that has everything.

Cool way to break your computer wide open to security exploits.

Also, an awesome image of text, so people can’t just copy & paste it, but that’s more of a hidden blessing.

“haha this person has sincere beliefs, what a moron!”

It’s more like

this person is making us sicker of them than the thing they’re telling us to be sick of, and we were already sick of that!

Getting sanctimonious & overbearing with people who don’t even disagree with you isn’t effective advocacy. We largely avoid AI already, and a tedious circlejerk isn’t getting us anywhere or adding anything that isn’t frequently stated.

By drawing more ire toward them than things we should be sick of, circlejerks are unjust & deserve all the derision they can get until balance is restored.

As usual, that’s documented (we can RTFM).

• Bash command line editing covers searching.
• Readline library command line editing covers searching.

Before trying ctrl-s, you may want to disable software flow control: run stty -ixon & add it to your initialization files. Otherwise, you’ll pause terminal output. ctrl-q resumes terminal output.

stty reveals terminal special characters

$ stty -a
⁝
intr = ^C; quit = ^\; erase = ^?; kill = ^U; eof = ^D; eol = <undef>; eol2 = <undef>; swtch = <undef>; start = ^Q; stop = ^S; susp = ^Z; rprnt = ^R; werase = ^W; lnext = ^V; discard = ^O; …
⁝

These special characters/keys often perform special functions. To illustrate

• ctrl-d on empty input typically exits/logs out of interactive terminal applications (including shells)
• ctrl-u discards input (useful for inputs like password prompts that don’t echo input back)
• ctrl-v inputs next character literally (such as tab)

No, you are not. I also give 0 fucks about intellectual property.

People with their modern conveniences have it so well, they just make shit up to be upset about.

Slippery slope: none of that necessarily happens. As with any tool, it’s up to the users.

What we know for sure is that these are modern nuisances for people who live relatively amazing lives, so they just make shit up to be upset about. Other people have real problems.

Does the rest of the world have enough fucks to spare for this over their real problems of hunger, war, disease, poverty, violence, illiteracy, toxic pollution, human rights abuses? Despite their real-world problems paling in comparison to online bullshit, will they live?

Oh noes: 1ˢᵗ world problems. How will we live?

Vaguely reminds me of goatse: I guess we can see goatse everywhere we look for it.

Obviously google, facebook etc. are not going to fall to the ground with tears in their eyes with this.

It won’t? Well, that clinches it: I’m out.

It’s your system

Evil techcorp’s servers (hosting online services I send requests containing data to) are mine? Cool! How do I sell those?

Or are we referring to local software that gets & sends my data without authorization?

you either accept it or don’t get to use what you bought

Claiming that’s theft seems like (taking artistic license with the word steal to express) wanting an agreement that wasn’t offered. Like

How dare evil techcorp make a service I want to use with voluntary conditions I don’t want? That’s stealing!

I don’t think computer hardware typically has those types of agreements, and I can change the software & choose online services.