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:
No, you retard. I questioned the necessity to use sexual objectification (of underage looking female characters, IIRC) to incentivize people to donate blood.
If people NEED to be shown some big titty anime girl (who otherwise looks like a little girl) to be motivated to donate blood, because NOTHING ELSE can motivate them, then society is fucked.
Besides, you don't know how many people may have AVOIDED the blood donation booth because they glanced at it and saw something perverse. If objectification can make people decide to donate blood, it can also make them avoid donating blood.
Either people are smart and ethical and donate blood regardless of some stupid placard (in which case you don't need it) or they're stupid and/or have questionable ethical principles in which case the stupid placard may change their decision in either direction.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too:
> People are so stupid that they need to be shown a sexualised little girl to be motivated to donate blood, but they're also smart and would never let such a perverse graphic dissuade them from donating blood.
MAKES TOTAL SENSE
The last time I explained this to you, you were too stupid to grasp it. I doubt that anything changed, but maybe the other people reading this will understand.
Oh so the "law against anime" is actually a law against virtual child pornography?
I was wondering what's going on there. So it's just virtual child porn addicts losing their minds and starting to screech, seethe, and lie through their teeth because their virtual child pornography might be taken away from them. Makes sense.