Tbh, I haven’t experienced too many issues other then modifying a couple prgrams to be compatible with OpenRC. On my main desktop I use Debian 12 and Systemd with my 2080 SUPER and haven’t encountered any issues.

Although, when I tried to install the open kernel version of the NVIDIA driver, my system didn’t like it, so I ended up installing the full proprietary driver and it works well. Will be switching to AMD once I need to buy another graphics card.

(I use Gnome as my DE with two 1440p 144hz monitors)

I use Debian with the Linux-libre kernel and OpenRC, relatively the same experience but without the AUR.

Debian is super easy to use, plus we have AI now at our fingertips which makes it even easier.

DRM?

Just use Invidious.

I never felt the same buzz after my first cigarette, it felt like I was fucking drunk after my first smoke lol.

After that I was basically just chasing the dragon, I was smoking about 15-30 cigarettes a day for about 1-2 years. Never again.

Fuck them kids

While I understand the concern that allowing one such mod could set a precedent, each mod’s impact should be evaluated on its own merits and within the context of the platform’s guidelines. Indeed, many mods may be considered ‘stupid’ or ‘useless’ by some, but they nonetheless find an audience.

Is the existence of an ‘ignored setting’ truly sufficient to warrant a ban, or does that reflect a broader issue around community standards and governance?

Sealioning is often a tactic used to derail conversations, but that’s not my intent here. I genuinely want to explore the community standards that dictate mod removals. If you find that pseudo-intellectual, perhaps it’s because the questions themselves are inherently complex and require intellectual discussion.

Fair enough, you’re not obligated to partake in a more nuanced discussion. But make no mistake, the essence of a public forum is to invite varying opinions, including those that go beyond surface-level judgments. If that’s not a conversation you’re interested in, you’re free to step aside. But don’t misinterpret my thoroughness as desperation.

Your point about ‘ethics in game journalism’ isn’t actually the focus of my argument. I’m more interested in discussing what kinds of content should be considered unacceptable to the point of removal. This is all about understanding community standards and how a platform should be governed.

As for asking people to go to the main post, my intent is to centralize the discussion for everyone’s benefit. It allows for a more structured, in-depth conversation. This isn’t about pushing a ‘Why can’t we all just get along’ agenda, but rather, understanding the guidelines that govern our interactions. If you find that to be tired rhetoric, perhaps we’re looking at different aspects of a complex issue.

Your point is well-taken, but it’s also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I’m fully aware that the mod’s author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it’s about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I’m interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.

While it’s true the platform has the right to refuse hosting certain content, the point at issue is whether that decision should be made on subjective opinions like ‘dumb trash,’ or if a more balanced approach should be taken. We’re discussing the principles of platform moderation, not just the convenience of downloading a mod elsewhere.

In the words of JFK, ‘One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.’

In an online world filled with a plethora of mods, from artistic to bizarre, it’s intriguing that the focus narrows down so sharply on one. The concept of a ‘dumb meme mod’ being powerful enough to tarnish the reputation of an entire platform is a strong statement about the perceived fragility of said platform. Also, the idea that users need to be ‘shielded’ from something they can just scroll past underscores a lack of trust in the user community to make their own informed choices. Surely, the platform can weather the storm of a singular, controversial mod without undermining its integrity.

The purpose of centralizing the discussion is to understand various perspectives on platform moderation. While you may see the issue as settled, other individuals may have questions or viewpoints they’d like to explore. Declining to engage in debate doesn’t nullify the merit of the discussion for others who are genuinely interested in dissecting the subject matter.

If you’d like to engage in a debate on this topic, I invite you to bring your arguments to the original post where the discussion is centralized. This will help maintain a focused and meaningful conversation. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I agree that Nexus, as a private platform, has the prerogative to decide what content to host. The focus of my original post was not on the content itself, but on the criteria for moderation. If you’d like to engage further, please post your comment on the original discussion for a more centralized dialogue.

Thank you for your input. Could you please post your comment on the original post? It would be more constructive to have all viewpoints and discussions centralized there for a more comprehensive dialogue.

If the primary objective here is to engage in constructive dialogue, then name-calling and overgeneralization serve no purpose and only fuel the fire. The issue at hand has been conflated to be about political affiliations like Republican vs. Democrat, when that’s not the core point of discussion at all. We’re here to debate the merits and drawbacks of mod removal, not to stereotype one another based on our political leanings or otherwise.

I must point out, albeit reluctantly, that much of the stereotyping and overgeneralizing in this thread seems to be coming from those who are in favor of the mod’s removal. This does little to advance a constructive conversation and only serves to deepen divisions.

If we’re truly interested in finding common ground or at least understanding the other side of the argument, we need to stop dismissing each other’s viewpoints out of hand. Only through respectful and open discussion can we hope to reach a resolution that considers the full complexity of the issue.