Is this really where you are talking about?

One of us doesn’t know what socialism is, and I want to be very clear here that it might be me.

I am under the impression that socialism is about the government owning industry, not having a robust social safety net. Though, from that link you provided, Norway happens to be an exception in the Nordic model, and actualy does own some industries. So I guess we’re both right? haha

It’s funny because I almost left that out.

I’m pretty sure that Norway is capitalistic, just like America. The difference is mostly a matter of degree, not category. I definitely could be mistaken, though.

Well, I really doubt anyone is being serious in this entire thread but the parameters were simply that it was something one person could do (inferred), and that it wasn’t illegal.

I think my solution meets those requirements.

At the risk of making the OP’s problem worse: https://www.visittromso.no/ for the curious.

Considering some of their comments, doesn’t seem likely to be right wing. Most of their complaints are anti-capitalism in nature. The rest of your reply is certainly plausible.

A quick scan of the OP’s history suggests that they live in Norway, but I don’t know if that tells us anything about what a “small town” is. Nor do we know why the town is popular. It’s at least plausible that tourists stay in that small town because there are so many places to stay, and it’s close to some area that is the real reason the tourists are there. (like a mountain to ski on, or something).

I doubt the OP expects a real answer, because they didn’t provide enough information.

Run for mayor (or local equivalent), win, and then push for/implement a bunch of rules that make the town inhospitable to tourists.

I assume the tourism brings in money to the local community, yeah? Cutting off that income will probably mean you won’t be able to win the next subsequent election, so act fast.

I don’t see how that is relevant.

You might want to reconsider the iamverysmart routine since you couldn’t even spell copyright correctly one comment ago, yet I assume you expect me to believe you have some knowledge of the topic.

However, your point is my point. There was no risk of a lawsuit; they’d just get a takedown notice.

Though, now that I scroll up, what does this have to do with whether or not defederation is sometimes warranted? Did I get mixed up, or did you?

My wife had a guy start at her company the same day she did, but he got fired that same day because for reasons no one understands he decided it would be wise to make his Teams (or whatever they used. Slack? I can’t remember) profile picture a meme that said “Epstein didn’t kill himself” or something to that effect.

It was a six figure software engineering job, too. I cannot imagine losing a job like that for such a silly, self-inflicted reason.

And due to the nature of IP enforcement, once an object has been created that the copywrite holders could find objective, takedown enforcement becomes impossible when an object is more or less instantly shared across a hundred thousand instances.

This is not correct.

Copyright (not “copywrite”, btw) law is batshit insane, but somehow people believe it to be even worse than it is.

Your browser makes copies of every image you see, but this doesn’t violate copyright law because it’s automatic and necessary for the browser to function. Does that sound familiar?

Also, for like 2 decades the standard action is just a takedown request that threatens legal action if ignored.

And to be clear, the admins had no actionable reason to block the piracy communities. They did it preemptively.

I apologize; I don’t know what you mean in relation to what I said. Do you mind elaborating?

I promise it is true. I’ve been doing it for months.

You haven’t been blocking instances with Lemmy because that option doesn’t yet exist.

Speak for yourself. Doesn’t harm me.

What do you mean? Are you saying that because you aren’t affected that no one can be?

I thought we were discussing defederation. You cannot block entire instances on lemmy, that I know of.

Blocking a community does not block the users of the instance. The type of people that would naturally gravitate to, for example, a far right instance of lemmy.

I think one of us doesn’t understand federation-- and to be clear, it might be me.

I don’t need anyone choosing for me what I should and should not see. I can (and do) do that myself, thank you.

I see this a lot, and first off, it’s not true at the instance level, for lemmy-- unless there’s a new option I didn’t see. Second, having to block someone that suggests you should die for your skin color, after reading the comment, is not without harm. There is value in preventing the speech from being seen at all, versus blocking people after the fact.

It’s obviously a generalization, but generally the people who say “just block them” are also people that haven’t lived with systemic bigotry directed at them for their entire lives.

And for the record, I don’t think piracy falls into this category of speech.

It’s a problem of scale. If you don’t defederate from a racist-focused instance (for example; hypothetically speaking), then you need to devote resources to moderating those users who make racist comments, as allowed by their instance, but directed at your users. Sure, you could do this, but it’s probably smarter to just defederate and save the resources for other uses. And no moderation team is going to be flawless, so racism will still creep in and be missed by the mod team.

It might be a different story if users are given the tools to block entire instances (like kbin has) but even then I think the ROI would be low.