If 8 trilobites hang out together, would they make a trilobyte?

Neither namedropping nor virtue signalling nor spreading misinformation is okay.

Speculating:

Restricting posting from accounts that don’t meet some adjustable criteria. Like account age, comment count, prior moderation action, average comment length (upvote quota maybe not, because not all instances use it)

Automatic hash comparison of uploaded images with database of registered illegal content.

Be advised: I recognize this person joining and speedrunning Ban% in safespaces for several months now. This is at least my 4th sighting of them. They will antagonize the userbase in record time by blatant disregard of netiquette and basic human decency. They will cite any of their vast repertoire of mental conditions or minority membership cards as justification when called out on bad behavior - whatever is convenient at the time. Conversation to them is a game that must be won at all cost and people with even slightly differing opinions are seen as enemies that need to be defeated (and also humiliated) Their strategy is generally to single out one member and harass them with wall of text posts.

Do not engage. Do not educate - dozens have tried and failed. Just identify the pattern and ban permanently, before they can do any lasting damage to your community.

It was pretty bad a couple years ago. They learned.

Pet test. Success.

Just my kind of humor! I thought I had dozens of eligible images saved, but upon further inspection, most are actually either sufficiently dadaistic but without text, or the text is actually just a shitpost, or german. 🫤

I’ll see if I can edit some into the desired format.

No problem, it’s nice to have a level-headed exchange amidst an ongoing tornado of sewage :)

So, I can try to empathize with either side (mods and users) for each of the two quotes, and there might be scenarios where one is completely right and one is wrong. But as an outsider to the kind of debates where these quotes are commonly used, I simply don’t have the cultural understanding to help much with answering your question. Sorry.

Drawing the arch back to my initial statement: There are several levels of escalation present between utilising famous people quotes to make a general point and trying to dodge around community rules by veiling direct threats to a specified (inferred from context) group. I am of the opinion that the guillotine-comment I replied to is definitely stepping over the line and only remains standing, because right now additional enforcement of rules is (probably) not going to improve the weather situation mentioned above.

I had to look up what that even is, because I haven’t encountered that one before. (me not being US-American)

I cannot make a call on a reference to a quote brought forth on an unspecified subject without context.

In regards to JFK - yes that would count as advocating violence in a very generalised sense. But without context, again, I am not able to make a call, whether a ban on someone making the quote is justified or not. In general, moderation policy also falls under freedom of expression. Consequently, freedom of speech is not a claimable right against non-governmental agents. It’s a thing that a lot of people seem to selectively overlook when advocating for what would actually be better described as “Anarchy of speech”.

Is that an “implied” death threat?

It’s not. Where are you going with this argument?

Where I moderate, even implied death threats are a zero-warnings bannable offense.