jordanlund

Like getting video game news from Forbes. LOL.

I'm guessing you're talking about the post by AnonymousWolf about Ryan Al Najjar?

It was removed for being an image post, not an article.

Under rule #1, link to articles only.

This post, being a self post, is ALSO not an article and will be removed.

You'd have to go state by state, but here you go to get you started:

California:

https://elections.sbcounty.gov/faqs/not-connected-to-internet/

"No. According to California Elections Code section 19205, “no part of a voting system shall be connected to the internet at any time, or electronically receive or transmit election data through any exterior communications network.”

Colorado:

https://coloradonewsline.com/2024/10/15/colorado-voting-machines-not-connected-to-the-internet/

"Most counties in Colorado have upgraded their voting systems equipment since 2020 to models that physically cannot connect to the internet, and those that rely on older machines are statutorily required to disable any wireless capability.

Election officials say that even the older models do not create a vulnerability in the voting system, as some conservative politicians and activists claim."

Texas:

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/conducting/security-update.shtml

"No voting system is ever connected to the internet at any point - either when votes are being cast or when they are being counted. (Sec. 129.054, Texas Election Code)."

Washington D.C.

https://dcboe.org/getmedia/0af1fe48-d63c-4ec5-8bcf-ca61f2c2de5e/Cyber-Security-detail.pdf

"It is important to note that DC’s voting machines are never connected to the internet; voting machines have tamper- resistant seals; and our machines are audited regularly while we continually update our equipment with the latest technologies and protections."

You can do the other 47 states yourself, I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Any "source" that suggests voting machines are connected to the internet and are therfore hackable is suspect. That is a patently false allegation that you made REPEATEDLY.

No, they were repeatedly trolling other users and instigating slapfights that we had to deal with over and over again. Check the modlog. I made sure to remove every single trolling, sealioning, slapfighting comment.

They're a shitheel and it's good they're gone.

We are never going to sufficiently define every word to the satisfaction of some pedants. If you aren't aware of the common meaning of a word like "violence" then you have bigger problems, but they aren't on us to solve.

If you can state a fact without actually attacking another user, sure. For some folks that's harder than it seems.

Where people get confused is we do allow attacking the subjects or authors of the articles, that's A-OK.

Some article about the new "Big Beautiful Bill" and someone goes off on how everyone who voted for it is a fucking idiot who's destroying our country? That's fine. Suggesting they're traitors who need to be rounded up and killed? Not fine. Suggesting they're traitors who need to be rounded up and placed under the RICO act? Again, that's fine.

A lot of folks just report bad language, which is ignored most of the time. The only time it's actionable is when it's directed at another user or obvious slurs like "r-redacted".

If you're going to be a pedant and demand a definition of 'violence' I'd say start with the dictionary. Unless you were dropped on your head as a child you should know what the word "violence" means.

But sure, I'll play along:

"So let's take another approach: let me make some statements and you can tell me which would or wouldn't be bannable for violence:"

First off, removable is not bannable. Don't confuse removing an offending comment with banning a user. Banning happens after multiple removals and warnings.

"A>Thats fucking disgusting."

Not on it's own, no. But if it were in context towards a protected group, then yes. Removable. We have removed many similar comments directed at trans individuals and communities for example, but wouldn't be removed for violence in those instances, rather transphobia or homophobia.

"That we as a society let someone live after doing that is obscene. We should all be ashamed."

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

"B>i think id kill the fucker, if i saw them doing that."

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

"C>if anyone is considering doing that, they should consider killing themselves first"

Advocating suicide is more serious, would get removed and likely temp banned. If the comment history showed a pattern of that it would be a permaban with no warning. We do not fuck around with encouraging suicide. Entirely too many cases of real world suicides driven by online ass-hattery.

"D>anyone who does this shoukd be hanged"

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

"E>i didnt even know microwaves could squirt. Im gonna throw up so hard my downstairs neighbor drowns."

That's kind of objectively hilarious, but obviously hyperbole. I've personally used the phrase "threw up everything I've eaten since I was 12." Not biologically possible, but you get the idea.

"F>ill vote for anyone who promises to go to war with any country that allows thay"

I guess it depends on what the 'thay" is? Hard to tell from this.

"G>if i tried that, my jaw would be a fine red mist."

Again, depends on what the "that" is. Swallowing a shotgun? Suicide ideation, see above. But without that context, can't tell.

"H>there has to be a law against this. If there isnt, we need to fix that"

"You're right! There oughta be a law!"

https://youtu.be/SZ8psP4S6BQ#t=55s

"I>shit, this looks recent. I think i recognize the skyline in the background. Im calling the police. "

Not removable unless they specifically identify the person or place in the comment, then it would be removed for doxing. We had A LOT of that for some shithead white supremacist, people kept posting his home address in a variety of creative ways. Repeat offenders were banned. Wow, I don't even remember who it was now, that was a wild week or so.

"J>im going to find and kill this piece of shit."

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

"K>anyone who does that should be denied housing, food, and every other benefit of society."

In the old Icelandic sagas, they had this as a punishment for certain crimes, it was called being an outlaw. You were literally outside the law and had no legal rights or protections. If someone didn't like your face and decided they wanted to kill you, they would not be punished for it because you're an outlaw. Grettir's Saga man, good read! He got branded an outlaw for setting a house on fire and killing everyone inside. Lived longer as an outlaw than anyone else.

Not really a call for violence.

Edit:

"L>im going to order this guy some edibles and 20k calories of food every day until he has a heart attack and fucking dies."

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

"M>this meddlesome microwave atrocity doer is something id love to not share a world with."

Yes, you are suggesting someone be killed, that's removable.

We aren't punishing users for speaking, we're punishing users for breaking the rules of the community.

Let me be 100% clear here... there is no 1st Amendment freedom of speech on lemmy. That applies only to government action and we are not the government.

You can't come into lemmy and just say whatever you want, wherever you want. That's what 4Chan is for. lemmy.world has rules, different communities have rules. Don't like it? Find a different instance or community.

Nope, for example, you can argue for shutting that shit down in Israel, I have no problem with that. As I've stated previously, Israel is not going to stop killing people until somebody invades and makes them stop. They have been engaging in war crimes for decades now and nobody is willing to stop them.

But as soon as you cross that line into "Execute Netanyahu! Death to the IDF!" that crosses a line.

Take them into custody and prosecute them in a War Crimes tribunal? Excellent, love to see it. Murder them in the streets? Well, now we're no better than they are.

No, there is no discussion when what you wrote is 100% clear. Where we go from here is entirely up to you.

Keep your nose clean in the communities I mod and we'll have no problem. You might even find I'm on your side more often than you think.

Revert to calling for violence again and you'll get bounced with a quickness.

Rule 6: Do not advocate violence.

Removed comment #1:

"I advocate for Ukrainians to fight for their freedom, VIOLENTLY, WITH GUNS"

"DID THE RIGHT THING and KILLED WITH VIOLENCE AND GUNS"

bzzt - Removed.

Removed comment #2, following being warned, which earned the temp ban:

"Death to...
Death to...
Death to...
Death to... "

What part of no advocating violence is fucking unclear to you assholes? No, we aren't going to let users call for Death.