@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Zagorath

@Zagorath@aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

They go to every party

Yeah I thought that was the case, and to be honest the main reason I asked this question was for the questions in the second paragraph around what happens when different types of users action the report.

But also, are the 4 groups I mentioned all correct? I didn’t miss one?

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

omg I love your instance name. (But I hate that font :O)

But actually I think I did see that post, and the responses in it were probably part of what was bouncing around my brain that led me to ask this post. Because my main curiosity was less around who reports go to (I asked that to make sure I hadn’t missed something, more than for any other reason), but around what happens when reports are actioned by one of those groups, but not others.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

I’m guessing “target instance” here means both the host instance of the community and the instance of the user doing the reporting, which may be the same or may be two different instances?

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

So if one of these groups has already actioned it, the post will still appear in the queue for the other groups to take a look at? I vaguely recall hearing about an issue where admins approving a comment would mean mods won’t get to see it, or vice versa. Is that me misreading/misremembering something, or has it since been fixed?

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

I have to admit, I did a double-take at “Australia’s biggest city” referring to Melbourne. But it does in fact appear to be correct, so long as you look at “significant urban areas”, and not the “greater capital city statistical area” or “urban centre”.

To be honest I’m not sure what each of these is supposed to mean. GCCSA is at least clear in that it’s the SUA of the main city plus a few others (Central Coast and Bacchus Marsh & Gisborne, respectively), but what is SUA vs UC? Clearly neither is as limited as “city council area”, but beyond that? 🤷‍♂️

Anyway, this is certainly not a problem unique to Melbourne. It’s been quite a while since I’ve made it down there, but the perception I get is that yous have a lot better options for public transport than we do up in the sunshine state. And at the very least,

But it’s the difference between an hour-and-a-half of travel time, compared to maybe 30 or 40 minutes

Is incredibly relatable here, too. It’s a problem across the entire country, as well as in other anglosphere countries around the world. We desperately need a wide-spread cultural and political change when it comes to transport and city planning. That means more and more frequent public transport. More public transport routes that aren’t solely designed to get into and out of the CBD. More and better active transport routes. Better zoning laws to enable more people to live closer to where they want to go. And it also necessitates not spending billions upon billions of dollars on road-widening to keep making cars more and more appealing.

This article was much better than I was expecting, honestly, touching on non-CBD routes, congestion charging, and building more in areas with pre-existing good public transport. But it was all so very surface-level. More articles like this, for Melbourne, for other Australian cities, and at the national level, is great. But even greater would be more articles that allow themselves to really delve in present a clear vision for a better future.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Like @anathema_device said, he could appeal. But the judge also ruled that if he had needed to award damages, they would have been very low. So if he did appeal, he’d have to not only prove that the judgment was wrong to go against him, but also that damages should have been much higher. That makes the idea of an appeal much less…appealing.

Mr Lehrmann would have been entitled to more than a nominal award but as the above analysis demonstrates, his award of ordinary compensatory damages would be very modest. Hence any augmentation of damages occasioned by the aggravating conduct, comes from a very low base. If it had been necessary to assess damages in favour of Mr Lehrmann, the appropriate and rational relationship between the actual harm sustained and the damages awarded would lead to total damages of $20,000.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone

So, I also haven’t followed the case very closely, but AIUI, it actually wasn’t even that. Brittany Higgins merely went to the media and stated that she was raped by her former boss. Lehrmann merely claimed that it was obvious she was talking about him from her statements.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

There was a criminal trial a while back, but it was declared a mistrial after some jury fuckery. They declined to re-prosecute because of the detrimental effect it would have on Higgins’ mental health. As others have said, this is a civil trial, specifically, Lehrmann trying to sue the people Higgins went to in the media to tell her story for defaming him.

Truth is a defence to defamation, so proving that the claims were true (in this case, as others have said, to the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt) is a way to win a defamation case as a defendant.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Is there any way this could have gone worse for him?

Coulda been a full Oscar Wilde and resulted in charges being brought back to him after they had otherwise already been dropped.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Someone in the Brissy Discord mentioned they were surprised the page hadn’t been locked. So I did some digging.

Turns out, the page has basically only existed since today. Up until then, it would just redirect you to the “2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins” section of the page “2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations”. Today, the page was created for real, and has been edited by 9 users making a total of 20 edits. That opening has been altered to be a little more legally safe.

The sidebar still says “Known for: Rape at Parliament House” though.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

2, 3, and 4 are brilliant suggestions.

1 is ridiculous. You’re actively asking for a worse user experience. When ordering a search, after 2–4 have been accounted for, order should be descending order of size.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

You might prefer smaller instances; I see a lot of value in that. I myself am on an instance that’s almost identical in size to yours.

I do not see the value in smaller communities being prioritised when they each cover the same topic. If there’s !android with 10,000 subscribers and !android with me and my twelve mates, lemmy.world is the one the app should show people first. It wouldn’t matter to me whether that 10,000 is on lemmy.world or midwest.social, it makes sense to show users the place they’re likely to have the most interaction.

I actually didn’t realise which community I was in when I posted that previous comment, and as a user of a different instance I might not have weighed in had I done so. However I will say that:

  1. This part of it is clearly not a bug, however you put it. It is a difference of preference. There is a worthwhile bug to report here, but it’s around the inability to view more than some number of communities when you search. I think you do yourself a massive disservice by conflating two essentially unrelated issues, one of which is your personal preference.
  2. It’s not instance-related at all. This belongs in discussion around lemmy-ui, the various Lemmy apps & alternative front-ends, or in Lemmy itself with what gets returned by its search API.
Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

You know Cloudflare isn’t a web hosting service, right? It just sits in front of actual hosts to help with things like DDOS protection. aussie.zone is hosted in Sydney, Australia. I don’t know about those other instances you mentioned, but if your complaint is only about Cloudflare, it becomes even more ridiculous than it was on first blush.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

I know well how Cloudflare works. I’ve used it myself at work, and for my personal website. That website you linked clearly doesn’t use it, because it took about 5 seconds to load up despite being entirely text. That’s why it’s a good service.

I find most of the criticisms it describes largely unconvincing in general, but particularly unconvincing in the fediverse. Yes, you can in fact access content on the fediverse without Cloudflare if you really want to. You can choose to use a different instance, and it doesn’t matter where that data is hosted. The fediverse is by design not a privacy-forward platform, so concerns about “content they expect to be private” don’t matter.

It’s still decentralised because each instance is run by its own instance administrators with their own rules and capable of maintaining its own culture. This is the real goal of federation. Nothing about Cloudflare runs counter to that. Even if they were all hosted in the same data centre it would not be a large mark against the fediverse, though there would be some small risk of being deplatformed by the host. That risk exists with Cloudflare too, except that a site previously behind Cloudflare can choose to no longer use it far more easily than a site can move its hosting provider at short notice—plus Cloudflare has a history of being extremely slow to wield that power.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Fwiw the term “libertarian” as used on these compasses is referring purely to the social scale, and not the economic one. So an American capital-L “Libertarian”* should be right-libertarian. But left-libertarians are also possible, being of the views “hey, everyone should have the resources to receive good healthcare, education, and a safe living space”, but also “people should be able to do what they want to their own bodies, so long as they aren’t impacting on others”.

  • using it here strictly in its original conception, rather than in the modern sense of “far-right Republican trying to hide behind a friendlier sounding label”
Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Sorry, but a shovel is unskilled labour. A forklift driver is absolutely not. In the sense that you quite literally need prior qualifications in order to do it, it’s not something any basically functioning adult can do with on-the-job training.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Using the definition provided by @damnedfurry (appearing as “ObjectivityIncarnate”), yes, they meet that definition. Forklift drivers are not trained on the job, they need a specific licence. That makes it not unskilled labour.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Really highlights just how shit car dependency is, hey?

Or, less favourably towards the specific individuals involved, to quote Chris Cox on Facebook: “Poor planning leads to poor performance. If avid motorists can’t plan their trips, that’s their problem”

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

It would be your state Member of Parliament. Make sure not to bother with your federal member, because they can’t do anything about it.

It might be handy to have some evidence to support your personal preferences. Here are a few:

I’m particularly a fan of the penultimate one linked there, which states:

In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently.

As a side note, it’s “daylight saving time”, not “savings”. The name is supposed to refer to the idea that DST somehow “saves daylight” (so it’s daylight-saving). It’s not a savings account.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Haha no personal thanks needed. Just go out there and be a force for good in the world! (In this case: convincing people & politicians to abandon this deadly practice.)

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

Oh sorry yeah, I understood how you meant it, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. When I brought up “anecdote vs science” it was more meant to play as a parallel to your comment, rather than a refutation. Sorry for the confusion.

Zagorath,
@Zagorath@aussie.zone avatar

At all elections I’ve voted in, the Greens have been the first out of the noteworthy parties on my ballot, but I have variously put other smaller parties ahead of them, especially in the Senate. Pirate Party comes to mind as one example. In 2016 I think I did Pirate Party 1, Greens 2.

My reasoning for that was: even though I might agree with more of the Greens’ policies, at the time I placed a high priority on the kinds of things the Pirate Party was advocating for. I still care a lot for intellectual property rights, but the importance of climate policy, housing, education, healthcare, and other things where the Greens perform better than Pirates has gone up over time.

To be honest, more recently I’ve turned more and more towards the Greens. I don’t always agree with their methods and the way they prioritise things, but I can name very, very few of their policies that I actually disagree with. And frankly, the most recent example I can think of where I disagreed with their methods, they proved me wrong. Specifically, on the housing bill last year, I thought Labor’s initial plan was bad, and the Greens got a good compromise out of them. I then thought the Greens should have accepted that compromise as “good enough”, lest they get tagged yet again with the “letting the perfect be the enemy of the good” label that has unfairly haunted them since Rudd’s climate policy.* But then the Greens kept at it, and ended up getting further compromise out of Labor, and only then supporting the Bill. Excellent work.

I’ve been voting in this country for 30 years, and for the last 20, it doesn’t seem to make a difference beyond undoing the last governments work

Hard to disagree with that, to be honest. I have complex feelings about this, from a bunch of different angles.

First: this is in no small part a Labor + LNP problem. I genuinely do believe that if the Greens had a majority in the House and Senate, it would make a huge really beneficial change. Partly, there is evidence for this. The Gillard minority Government is one of the most successful federal Governments we’ve ever had, and I believe that was in no small part thanks to the Greens and independents Labor was forced to compromise with in order to govern. The ACT government has long had Labor/Greens coalitions and though I don’t follow it very closely, I’ve heard mostly good things. I can also point to governments elsewhere in the world where coalition governments are more commonplace, and at least when voters choose to vote more strongly left-wing, you tend to get better results than when Australia votes more left-wing.

And that segues me quite nicely to point 2. Our voting system. IRV is not a very good system. It’s the best you can get with single-winner seats, but any single-winner system is always going to be worse than proportional systems. Our Senate uses STV, which is quasi-proportional, and so it’s a fair bit better than IRV, but not as good as truly proportional systems. At the last federal election, over 12% of Australians wanted a Greens representative. Less than 3% actually got one. A combined 9% wanted One Nation and United Australia Party. They got 0. Labor got 51% of seats, from less than 33% of votes. The LNP is actually the most fairly-represented party, getting 39% of seats from 36% of votes. With more parties better-represented in Parliament, I think we would get better outcomes, instead of the same two parties over and over again. It would normalise the act of compromise to reach outcomes more people agree with. I think advocating for a change to our voting system to use something like MMP would be one of the best things we can do.

And thirdly, I’ve been a huge fan of former Brisbane City Councillor and former Greens Lord Mayoral candidate for Brisbane Jonathan Sriranganathan, ever since I started watching BCC meetings and seeing how thoughtful and dedicated he is. He has some really good words to say on the subject of electoralism (or the idea that merely voting better is a way to achieve better outcomes). I linked his final speech before leaving Council, which is really good and worth reading (also available in video form at the bottom), but this little bit is particularly powerful:

My time here has shown me the hard limits of electoralism as a standalone strategy for achieving social justice and ecological restoration. This entire system – including the council public service – has been structured to defend an unjust, extractivist order that benefits a privileged few, while brainwashing the majority into believing a better world isn’t possible. It is deeply naïve to think we just have to get a few more ‘good’ people elected and then everything will get better.

When I first won the Gabba ward, I actually had more faith in the potential of progressive government and running for office than I do now. I still think there’s significant strategic value in contesting elections to help tip the scales, but as they say in Barcelona, we must have one foot in the institutions and a thousand feet in the street.

It’s not that the individual politicians in this chamber are all personally corrupt. It’s not even that the major parties still take campaign donations from the corporate sector. It’s because this overly-hierarchical bureaucratic pseudo-democracy eventually reduces everyone who engages with it to faint shadows of what they could be – makes them afraid of deeper transformation. It narrows their thinking and turns them into bickering windbags.

He’s been criticised by the major parties on a number of fronts, but one of the biggest ones earlier on was how heavily he gets involved in disruptive protests. His words here explain why he thinks it’s such an important tool for political change, and I can’t help but agree.


  • and as a side note, I say “unfairly”, because in the climate instance, it was manifestly unfair. Rudd’s policy wasn’t “good but not perfect” as Greens detractors would have you believe, it was actively bad. Treasury modelling (i.e., modelling designed to be as unbiased as possible, but likely biased towards the incumbent government if anything) said it would have no effect for 25 years. That means even today, we’d still be almost a decade away from it having any impact. And it included provisions that would mean if we wanted to increase it over time, we would have to pay polluters. Instead, the Greens ended up reaching a good compromise with the Gillard Government and seeing enormous positive change immediately. It’s the LNP and the right-wing media that deserve the blame for our current poor position on climate, not the Greens.
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • kavyap
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cisconetworking
  • thenastyranch
  • ethstaker
  • lostlight
  • tacticalgear
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • tester
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • HellsKitchen
  • relationshipadvice
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines