It also got people thinking in a different direction than “I agree with this” and “I disagree with this” as the main meaning of the vote.
At this point, I think most mainstream social media is corrupted enough by the dopamine loop that it’s fairly predictable that most of the comments would be taken over by it as well. Reddit comments used to be more informative than the article a lot of the time.
I would have thought that that applied to the Uber wrongful death suit also, but at least one court decided that type of click-through terms were binding even though it was clearly a bunch of shit.
Although, it was overturned later because it’s a bunch of shit. But it was at least a debate.
Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?
Lol I mean being straight with you and responding factually to what you were saying, responding substantively and clarifying, definitely didn’t work. Oh well. Also, “cynical” at least in the original meaning doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?
I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.
Sounds like you’re not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I’m not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.
My Lai was a little worse than usual, but it was also pretty much the MO for American forces. Lt. Calley was just bloodthirsty enough to do it as an official operation, making enough of a gestalt to attract some attention, instead of just having a handful of people on patrol to do it and then come back to base and play cards after like nothing happened. And then again the next week, and then again the week after that.
Oh… holy shit. I think you’re right. That’s a much better joke.
You get the Supreme Court to give you a little piece of paper that says, “I can do what I want.”
I mean it’s clearly just a little joke (quite a good one IMO) based on the fact that it’s a US-Constitution-like font.
The only question is whether the person who signed off on making this live was in on the joke. I suspect not, I think they probably thought “oh that’s a weird name for a font.”
At least for the tool I was talking about, it wasn’t planning on banning anyone. I’ve been a moderator for a decently large collection of forums on Lemmy and I can’t even remember the last time I banned someone, although it did happen a handful of times months and months ago. The tool was planned as purely something to give input to the participants about elements of the other person’s point that they were getting carried away with their own stuff and not addressing.
No, I just know scripting
I love how everyone in your replies is all of a sudden an expert on hitmen and their parameters.
Yes, a few minutes alone in a room with someone is long enough to kill them and make it look like something else. I’m as qualified as anyone else here (I’ve even seen a YouTube interview with an ex-professional hit man, so probably more so), so I can just say that and it becomes so.
Yeah, generally having it read the conversation (I think as JSON, maybe in markdown for the first pass, I can’t remember, it’s a little tricky to get the comments into a format where it’ll reliably grasp the structure and who said what, but it’s doable) and then do its output as JSON, and then have those JSON pieces given as input to further stages, seems like it works pretty well. It falls apart if you try to do too much at once. If I remember right, the passes I wound up doing were:
And I think that was pretty much it. It can’t do all of that at once reliably, but it can do each piece pretty well and then pass the answers on to the next stage. Just what I’ve observed of political arguments on Lemmy, I think that would eliminate well over 50% of the bullshit though. There’s way too many people who are more excited about debunking some kind of strawman-concept they’ve got in their head, than they are with even understanding what the other person’s even saying. I feel like something like that would do a lot to counteract it.
The fly in the ointment is that people would have to consent to having their conversation judged by it, and I feel like there is probably quite a lot of overlap between the people who need it in order to have a productive interaction, and those who would never in a million years agree to have something like that involved in their interactions…
Well, not really any of the above. I’ve tried with some mild success to build a “troll detection” system, but it needs far more work. Also, in the months since my initial work on this matter, I’ve found some far better approaches and would want to implement them. So my old work isn’t reflective of the new direction I’m planning to take.
I’ve actually done a version of this and a couple of other various ideas about it. The current WIP idea works totally differently to what you are talking about, I actually got as far as making a community for it, but then abandoned the effort because I couldn’t figure out a way to deploy it that would be in any way productive.
I’m going to say it knowing ahead of time that roughly 100% of the people reading are going to think it’s a terrible idea: It is an LLM-based moderator that watches the conversation and can pick out bad faith types on conduct in the conversation. I actually 100% agree with you about political conversation online being almost exclusively a big waste of time (including because of the way moderation happens and people trying to deliberately distort the narrative). This was just my idea to try to help it.
The thing that led me to never do anything with it was that I didn’t feel like anyone would ever buy into it enough to even take part in a conversation where it was deployed (even assuming it worked passably well which is not proven). If you care about these issues also, though, would you like to try the experiment of having the whole conversation we’re having with it observing the conversation and weighing in? I would actually like to, I’d be fine with continuing with the questions you were asking and continuing this whole debate about moderation and its impact on Lemmy, in that context. Let me know.
I’m not stopping you from laying out your thing, you can still say it. I feel like it’ll probably just be a reiteration of what you already said, which is why I don’t really want to go back and forth about it, I got your point already and I felt like I said my thing in turn. But sure, go ahead.
Honestly, I’m just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.
I’ll keep it short: No one from the DNC is on Lemmy. When you post on Lemmy, you’re not successfully talking any sense into the Democrats. You’re speaking to people who are deciding how to vote, whether to vote, how to get involved with activist organizations, and also just in a truth telling sense helping all of us make sense of what’s going on. The problems in American politics go way deeper than one candidate or one party. You are not saving the Democrats by making these recommendations, although they’re not really wrong, but you are attempting to take 100% of the oxygen away from other problems (which are also very real) which we are all similarly mostly-powerless to fix but which are also significant problems.
You’re also arguing against a bunch of stuff that I, at least, never said, which I understand is fun to do but it’s not real productive for us making sense to one another. I’m happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first: Find 5-10 different examples of me talking about Gaza, what a problem it was, and how Biden was complicit in it. Once you’ve done that (it should take literally one text search, use the @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat account since this one is new), we can chat.
Sorry, did something I said sound like “I’d like to have an extended debate about this with you?” I think I’ve laid out pretty clearly how I feel about it and why at this point.
The mods used their power to create the impression of a specific narrative, and you bought it.
Everyone knows I always obey what the mods want to shape, as the narrative. Especially Jordan.
Ozma was “right” in the sense that when history was finally written, they’re on the right side of it, and Jordan is on the wrong side. Jordan won the narrative battle, but lost the narrative war. Jordan’s ability to control and manage that narrative is perfectly on display in those top comments, but now, the narrative has shifted towards the narrative that Ozma was trying to construct and deliver.
If you accept a whole bunch of reframings of things into other things, then yes, this makes perfect sense. For example, you might say that because ozma can’t say his viewpoint 15 times a day, but only as many times a day as other people who are posting a variety of viewpoints including criticism of the Democrats, that means his viewpoint was suppressed, on purpose because Jordan bans any constructive criticism of the Democrats, and so on.
I can’t really add anything to what I’ve said already. You’re welcome to have the interpretation you like of what happened. It sounds like you’re pretty attached to your current one.
return2ozma has only the power of their rhetoric, their prominence, and the support of the community
The fuck are you smoking?
https://lemmy.world/post/16224102
Top replies:
I can’t rightly tell if you are legitimately this bad at remembering / perceiving what is happening on Lemmy, is why you’re giving me this whole alternate history where with the power of his rhetoric, he was trying to bring light to the darkness, and the mods just wouldn’t allow it so they could shape the narrative, but it’s seeming less and less likely that this is innocent mistakenness on your part the longer I talk to you about it.
Seriously.
I can hear directly from the horse’s mouth from someone who went through World War 2, fought in a trench and saw all the tanks, saw their friends die, had all these crazy experiences.
I watched Dunkirk and I didn’t like it because it was all a bunch of crap. Roald Dahl already told me how it was (not in France, in Greece, but sort of the same situation) and it just wasn’t like that. He watched German fighters buzzing around and picking off ships in the bay, from up on the hill, he went up in the air and flew around with bullets whizzing all around him, and then he showed them to me. Even if someone’s not an expert writer, if they were there, then they can tell you. Someone who just works in an office in Hollywood probably can’t tell you shit.
I can hear from someone who worked in a hospital ER, someone who survived a concentration camp, someone who lived in the boonies in Africa and got out and yelled at the giraffes and had scares with lions and poisonous snakes. Redmond O’Hanlon took me up the river in Borneo and we ate cooked worms together and the guides had a little celebration because they thought we’d never make it through the jungle because we’re old and fat and white. I saw Gene Kranz walk outside the building and cry, because in one of the simulations he fucked up and killed the whole crew, and he couldn’t handle thinking of it if it had been real. I was there the night that Elie Wiesel’s father died in the camps.
JRR Tolkien learned the secrets of life and death in the worst places in the world and he told them to me, the best he could put them together. Richard Adams too, and Harlan Ellison.
Is it the same as being there? Not even close. Is it better than just going to the store and talking with my coworkers? Fuck yeah it is.