antonim

This is a good comment and it forced me to really think about this. So here's my try:

Firstly, regarding the "social" position of different beliefs. The danger of playing on the road is as close to objective and universally accepted as it gets (that's why the state made laws against playing on the road); the belief of going to hell for whatever is usually instilled by a particular institution/community, which is aware that their belief is not accepted as true or relevant by many, including the state (otherwise, the state would make laws in accordance with that belief).

Secondly, the parent might also have delusions and hallucinate nonexistent dangers, thereby harming the child similarly as the religious cases, just limited to an individual situation. In such cases the parent is also completely convinced of the danger, just like how a religious parent is convinced of the danger of hell and practically everyone of the danger of playing on the road. But the state can't view all these beliefs as the same. In the case of insanity, it would be expected for the parent to lose custody of the child, so it seems logical to punish the same outcome with different motivation, i.e. religious. Or do we permit ridiculous and possibly harmful belief as long as it is religious, i.e. communal?

I do however agree that the religious limiting of career paths shouldn't be focused on. I think that a law against such limiting should be general, assumimg it is tenable at all. I am not aware of the exact situation in Japan, how the Unification Church affects people's beliefs regarding career paths, which that might help understand this law better.

Wait, cock.li is still alive?

The ancient murals prophesied of his arrival...

usually

No, quite the contrary.

Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter... have paid moderators. That's a small number of massive social media sites. Forums, including their descendants in the form of reddit and Lemmy, and IRC chatrooms with their descendants in Discord and Telegram channels, are primarily user-moderated (with paid admins intervening in more complex situations when needed). Even Facebook offers groups that function like this. Number-wise the latter sites are way more numerous (but with a smaller userbase), and historically older (if it's not too pretentious to speak of the history of the internet). They are the default. So my point is that reddit didn't offload the work, because nobody (especially in the early years) thought that it was reddit's work in the first place, it's just providing a large playground and you do the rest.

The traumatising part of moderation is dealing with child porn and similar, which is not much of an issue on traditional forums and chatrooms, and tbh I don't think it is on reddit either. The worst the traditional mods deal with is harassment if they come across some aggressive loony.

Idk, I used to moderate two (rather tame) subforums, it was kind of like picking up trash from the ground and throwing it in the bin – not super pleasant by itself, but satisfaction came from knowing that the place is a bit better off than before.

That's a weirdly written article. It's about a fictional person but is frequently written as if she's real, e.g. "Hart represented herself as a nurse" and "She regularly posted pictures of herself". No, she was presented as a nurse, and her, uhh, author(?) posted AI-generated pictures representing her.

Moderation of pretty much all traditional forums is done by volunteers, a practice that naturally extended to reddit and Lemmy. Perhaps it's even more logical in the reddit format, since it's the users who create and take responsibility for their subreddit, rather than having a centralised "government" deciding how to organise and moderate the place.

Wikipedia’s content is also 99% volunteer-made and volunteer-moderated.

Elves are kind of hippies, so they don't have any building regulations.

Alphonse Mucha?

"My" standard? It doesn't meet the standard of your source either.

!dailybunnies@lemmy.dbzer0.com

They're taking our memes!