Well she fucking didn’t did she?

A child hitting another child isn’t a crime that requires an arrest, trial, and conviction. It’s a discipline issue that requires teachers to call the kids’ parents.

And honestly? A kid creating deepfake porn is a much more serious discipline issue, but it’s still a discipline issue, because a middle school boy is still a fucking child. That kid should have been expelled and sent to therapy, but not arrested, because, again, child.

Arresting a child for anything is insane - but private prisons profit off that insanity, and conservatives love the idea of black babies growing up to be prison labor, so the school-to-prison pipeline ruins more children’s lives every day.

God, some people out there would have parents call the cops whenever their kids get in a fight. I hate this century.

Webre added that he does not expect to criminally charge the young girl.

“Due to the totality of the circumstances, we chose not to pursue charges on the female student,” he said.

What the fuck. Why is this is a question. Why would it even be possible to criminally charge the victim. Why are you acting like you’re doing her a favor by not “pursuing charges”. WHAT fucking charges would you be fucking pursuing.

I don’t expect commenters to know the answers to this. I just want to emphasize how American cops hate women so fucking much that when they have a 13-year-old female victim of a sex crime they ask themselves what crimes they can charge her with.

And men wonder why women don’t report.

Economics, as a science, has generally been used to measure and describe capitalist economies, since economics as a science has only existed as long as capitalism.

Which is fine.

Economics has had a bad habit of universalizing its descriptions of capitalist economies as if they were fundamental facts about human nature.

Which is not fine.

So, for example, economists talk about the “tragedy of the commons”, as if it was a law of nature that publicly owned resources are necessarily used to destruction by selfish individuals, and only private ownership enforced by law can prevent this destruction. When, in fact, publicly owned resources have been maintained by societies ever since society was a thing, the commons in England existed for thousands of years before capitalism was a gleam in Adam Smith’s eye, and the term itself was popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968 as a justification for abolishing welfare and letting poor people starve.

But hey, our colonial ancestors took millions and millions of acres of “unowned” land from native peoples, auctioned it off to private landowners, and turned the native people into slave labor to farm it, and isn’t it nice to tell ourselves that we’re using that land more efficiently and protecting it from overuse and mismanagement by privatizing it?

I mean, look, if I said to you “making profit is the highest good, and it is morally right for me to use every legal method at my disposal to make as much profit as I can from you”, you’d say I was evil or insane.

But if I said to you “making profit is the most important goal of my business, and it is morally right for me to use every legal method to make as much money as I can from customers” you’d probably nod and smile and agree.

And that’s the corrupting influence of economics, which has confused efficiency and morality so greatly that it’s convinced us that capitalism is the most moral form of social organization because a capitalist economy is the most efficient form of economic organization. Neither of which is true.

And this ties into fascism, and dictatorships, and Belgians in the Congo, and all sorts of monstrous human rights violations in the name of profit, because monstrous human rights violations naturally occur when you reduce human beings to commodities and tell yourself the highest form of morality lies in using those commodities as efficiently and profitably as you can.

Economics is not exclusively used for fascism, sure, but it’s done more to promote fascism than any other single science I can think of.

But people already have a public place to appeal. This sub, the sub you linked, pretty much any other instance that has a meta discussion community. But posting here, or there, isn’t an actual appeal process - it’s just publicly complaining about administrators.

And that was the answer to OP’s question: that there’s no single fediverse-wide place to appeal a ban, you have to follow instance specific appeal procedures, if they exist, and/or contact the instance’s administrators directly.

Which is a good thing, because it helps keep the verse decentralized.

I think, if there was a single location where the fediverse started telling people “if you get banned, post here to appeal”, users would expect some sort of formal response to their post, and get upset when people tell them posting there doesn’t actually do anything. Which would be bad. And if that location could do anything to encourage administrators to reverse ban decisions, via peer pressure or otherwise, that would also be bad, because it would compromise the independence of instances. That is to say, a fediverse wide appeal community would be at best useless and at worst harmful to the fediverse.

So I think the only appropriate response to “I was banned, what can I do” is “that’s between you and the people who banned you”.

I think any sort of fediverse-wide appeal community, or process, would risk compromising the whole point of the fediverse, ie, decentralization. The fact that admins have the final say on their own instances is part of what keeps the largest instances from controlling smaller ones and keeps the fediverse free of centralized control.

I mean, can you imagine a coalition of the largest instances coming together and telling a small instance “the appeal community agreed this user was banned unfairly, unban them or we’ll all defederate you”? Because I can imagine that sequence of events, if an appeal community got any kind of formal backing from the big instances, and that would pretty much end decentralization.

deleted by creator

AI is a parasite. It can’t come up with anything a human didn’t create first. It eats our thoughts and regurgitates them.

We kill AI by limiting our use of the Internet, renouncing social media in particular (and yes, I recognize the hypocrisy), and communicating with actual human beings through encrypted messenger apps that AI can’t scrape for new training material.

Think of AI like an online troll. Don’t feed it, don’t engage with it, and it will be irrelevant to you until it finally gives up and dies.

But the social media machine wants you not to talk to actual human beings, it wants you to be lonely and isolated, so you’ll consume its product - and AI is just a part of that machine, making you lonely and then providing you with the illusion of a real person to talk to.

Gardening is a great way to fight that, especially community gardening, because you literally have to be out there in person with your hands in the dirt talking to other gardeners.

So I agree with this post and strongly recommend anybody who doesn’t have space to garden go looking for a community garden, or volunteer at a food bank (which often have ties to community gardens and can point you at opportunities), or help at a Food Not Bombs event, or otherwise get yourself involved in the real live in-person work of feeding human beings, and reclaim your brain from the social media algorithm feeding you AI slop.

I don’t know who the people around you are. I won’t tell you you’re wrong to be afraid of interacting with them.

But I do know that social media is designed to make you feel that way.

Social media algorithms find the angriest, the most hateful, the most radical, content on all sides and feed it to you. So you’re going to see people on your side saying the other side wants to kill you, and you’re going to see people on the other side saying they want to kill you, and you’re not going to see the vast majority of people who don’t actually want to kill you.

Because the more afraid you are of your actual human neighbors, the more time you’ll spend on social media watching ads and being force-fed algorithmic slop. And that slop makes you even more afraid of your neighbors, so you spend even more time online, and so on and so forth.

So I’d ask you to ask yourself: if you believe people in your community want to kill trans people and enslave blacks, how much of that belief comes from what people in your community have actually said and done, and how much of that belief comes from stuff you’ve heard online?