They aren't entirely wrong. Both ends of the political spectrum are full of perverted men who project their perversions onto other men they hate. The target usually ends up being men of opposite lifestyle and political leaning.
Pastors/Imams/etc. and "LGBT youth group leader" types are like in a race with each other to see who can be more predatory. Exclusively men, of course.
And "leftist intellectuals" like Michel Foucault and supporters of NAMBLA and the like were simply the other side of the coin, opposite of traditional conservatives who think it's morally fine to marry off a 12 year old girl to a Good Man who will "provide" for her.
It's the same shit over and over again. Men want easy access to young girls, find some bullshit ideological or philosophical reason to justify it. Doesn't matter if left or right. Doesn't matter if it's a conservative Christian from Texas with "traditional values" or an LGBT activist from Berlin with "modern values."
Petition to make the "half your age plus seven" rule into law? :blobcat-joy:
50 year-old with a 30 year-old? Nope, off to jail!
That'd be way too strict of course, but I sure wouldn't mind raising the age of full adulthood above 18, with a "sliding window" sort of rule like is already the case for minors in most places. E.g. 19 and 17 is not a problem in most places from what I Know, and it seems quite stupid to make that illegal; likewise with 20 and 22 if we were to raise full adulthood to 21.
Digression: In some places, the sliding window is way too lax. In California, a 25 year-old can be with a 15 year-old, because an age gap of up to 10 years is allowed when the younger person is at least 14 years old. That's not OK, in my opinion.
If it were up to me, I would probably implement something like: "Half your age plus 6 is the lower limit, until the younger person is 25 at which point it becomes unrestricted." I'm choosing 6 instead of 7 because legal rules should generally be more relaxed than moral rules to allow for moral edge cases.
By the way, it should be said that in practice, most of the focus when judging people's relationships should go into assuring that there's no *actual* exploitation going on, which can't be decided with some simplistic formula. But at the same time, it's extremely difficult to codify into law what exactly is and isn't exploitative in a relationship between two people, so formulaic rules like this have their place in law.
Got reports from their admin account, mstdn.social@mstdn.social, reporting posts that complain about sexism and homophobia, calling them "hateful."
So, if you're against sexism and homophobia, mstdn.social considers you "hateful" and would rather have you shut up and accept the sexism and homophobia, or be banned from your server.
Note:
I'm actually 99% opposed to #FediBlock exactly because of bad actors like mstdn.social abusing it, so you may take this as sarcasm.
The only instances that should ever be blocked are those completely full of idiots like Poast, and even that should ideally be left for individual users to decide, like during account creation.
If you block instances, without even letting your user-base know or giving them an option to opt-out, because you can't deal with feminist opinions and think women are "fascist" for disagreeing with you, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
This seems wrong; the string is just a JSON string, and the client is responsible for rendering it as part of some UI that may or may not involve any HTML.
(Even if it involves HTML, the client should be using APIs to generate a valid HTML Element, for which it doesn't need to use escapes, since no parsing of HTML will be involved.)
In contrast, when I visit the hai.z0ne.social link, I see Firefox sending a POST to:
Which yields a response including some "comment" and "text" JSON string fields that contain the alt text / title for the video, and those do NOT contain things like ".
This doesn't prove that it's Pleroma's fault: It could be the case that Misskey stores " etc. in the database, and strips those again before responding to its client, but this seems doubtful.
I don't know enough about ActivityPub to be able to ask the hai.z0ne.social server for the post through the actual AP protocol; that would definitively reveal the culprit, I think.
@Suiseiseki URL won't load in my browser... When I do an nslookup on mm.vern.cc and replace the domain name with an IP (and accept the "invalid" certificate) it leads to a 404, probably due to vhost lookup failure.
After I was done writing this, I tried again and it loaded, never mind. :blobcat-joy: