It’s not so much that lemmy doesn’t keep it. JPG and WebP files themselves are limited to about 8 stops of dynamic range, so it doesn’t matter where you upload them, they’re not going to give you the same dynamic range you had in post processing from a RAW file

From the info in their sidebars, it looks like the best approach is to make a post at !meta@lazysoci.al, or tag lazynooblet@lazysoci.al

Comprehensible input! Start with simple content in that language you’re trying to learn, without any use of languages you understand. And then try and actively understand what you’re hearing, and work out how it all fits together!

Feddit.uk was defederated because they did not address transphobia on their instance and stopped responding when I asked for clarification of how they will handle similar incidents in the future in light of the transphobic legislation introduced in the UK. If it becomes clear they are acting on transphobia, we will refederate.

lemmy.ml does act on transphobia and despite their admins comments in DM, I have seen no indication that transphobic posts are allowed to remain on their instance from admins or users. If it becomes clear they’re not acting on transphobia, we will defederate. Either way, Nutomic will remain banned.

Which is to say, neither scenario is really contingent on the actions of an individual, rather they’re contingent on how the admins respond to transphobia.

Friendica, and to a lesser extent, misskey and it’s forks

Faux outrage isn’t playing around though. They’re not doing it for fun, they’re doing it for social capital.

It’s on my list to try!

And that’s why it’s good that it’s an option! I just don’t want it to become the only option

10/10 this is the future of Linux.

I hope it’s a future of Linux, not the future. I’m not a fan of atomic distros, mostly because if their reliance on flatpak and the like

Open world games don’t hold me, because ironically, they tend to feel too small. When you can walk from one side of the setting to the other in real time, it all feels small.

As an instance admin, if I regularly see reports for a local community that break community rules but not instance rules that sit without action for 24 hours or more, that’s when I’ll get involved with the community to try and get more active mods.

If the reports are for posts that break instance rules, I’ll action them whether or not there are local mods active.

This is all an interesting hypothetical to you. To me, it’s my lived life. Trust me, I’ve done what you’re talking about. I was active in /r/changemyview, and I’ve spent a lot of time having this discussion with people on social media.

And in that time, not a single person has changed their perspective or view on the topic. Because they already had a view, and despite the ostensible goal of the sub, they’re largely not open to changing their view. They may want to, but they’re not actually willing to change it. Because ultimately, people arrived at their “concerns” through emotional manipulation, and that can’t be undone by “rational discussion”. Like sure, maybe you’re the single exception, and in my 5+ years of having this discussion, you might be the first to genuinely change your opinion. But even then, after 5 years of normalising the idea that my rights are up for discussion, as if it’s actually ok for people to want them removed because of their “concerns”, I’d have a single changed mind in 5 years.

But you know what else I’ve done in those 5 years? I’ve told every other person that I’ve had this discussion with that it’s actually ok to debate my rights, that whether or not I deserve rights is based on how well I can debate and argue. And I’ve given the bigots driving this whole discussion exactly what they wanted, which is to make myself a target.

Fuck that.

So what does it say about me? It says I’ve got more lived experience in navigating this topic than you ever will, and I’m no longer willing to see “civil discussion” on the erasure of peoples rights, in the pointless hope that it will actually help us. Because it doesn’t.

That argument would be torn apart pretty easily

Sure. The argument can be torn apart. But that doesn’t change anything. What changes when you make those sorts of arguments is simply that it gives a green light to pushing back against marginalised people.

If argument being torn apart was enough, the argument against trans folk in sport wouldn’t even be an argument. But it is, because there is a political interest in creating harmful narratives about trans folk, and using exclusion from sport as a wedge to normalise exclusion in other areas. Which is exactly what is happening.

So if you’re ok with that sort of question, I think you need to spend a bit more time looking at the context those questions exist in. Why is it now that people want to suddenly talk about trans people in sports. It’s not because the trans folk have been doing anything different. It’s because there is an explicit motivation to create a culture war, with trans folk as the targets. You shouldn’t be ok with being part of that.

I’m not asking you to argue about it. I explicitly don’t want people arguing about it, which I was hoping my previous comment would make clear.

There are people out there that were raised a certain way that want to change or perhaps have questions due to ignorance on the topic. By being combative, you’re doing more harm than good for something you clearly care about.

If someone turns against all trans people because they encounter a single angry trans person, then they were just looking for an excuse to justify what they already felt.

And it’s not my job to play nice with the people trying to erase my rights in the hope that maybe, just maybe, they’ll stop what they’re doing! That doesn’t work. That has never worked. Every single civil right gain has been made by pushing back.

So thanks for the advice, but I’ll keep pushing back

So, you’d like to argue for the validity of excluding a vulnerable group, in the middle of a world spanning hate campaign against that exact group?

So, you’d be ok with someone arguing that maybe a discussion about racism is warranted, because sometimes, a bit of racism is warranted?

Or is that only ok when it’s trans people?

'cause if you want logical and consistent, that’s something you need to ask yourself. Why is it that folk are quite willing to discuss the erasure of rights of just one class of people, when it’s not something you’d even consider talking about with most other groups?

There is no consistency in that desire, it’s not driven by a desire to be logically consistent. This is driven by political interests and think tanks trying to create social divide. It’s not a co-incidence that you just want to consider the logical merits or trans folk, right now, at this moment in history.

Until you’re willing to face the reasons behind that, and the impact your social context has on you, you can’t be logically consistent.

What do you want changed then?

Also, if you come in expecting to debate for the removal of trans rights, you won’t last long

That’s because from a mastodon perspective, that’s what they are!

They’re basically the same thing as gup.pe groups to them

You run it and then reboot. If that doesn’t fix it, then it didn’t fix it :\