Yeah totally, but that’s why it links to the threads with the full context if you click on the modlog

I guess on the bright side at least it shows the text of the comments that got removed right there, and links directly to the thread. So people can easily verify for themselves whether they would agree with the ban or not. It’s more of an annoyance than anything, they can put whatever reason they want for banning you, but they can’t edit your comments or control the words you actually wrote down. So if you stand by what you wrote and others agree with your perspective, it just makes the mod look bad and they can also get removed for abusing mod powers.

Ah, the ole’ fiddler/diddler switcheroo.

The Diddler on the Roof does sound like it’d make for a captivating musical though. Shades of The Nightman Cometh.

I’ve always wanted to see a mod list that breaks down “local”. Like, you look at .worlds modlist from the main page, and it’s every mod action from every federate instance.

Yeah that’d be nice. Modlog has always left much to be desired. Although the core concept is great, it’s not fleshed out enough to be as useful as it should be. Sometimes it can even be weaponized by rogue mods to slander certain users. Because when you ban someone, that mod action is permanent and you get to put whatever text you want as the ban reason.

It definitely needs work but I can understand other things taking priority, considering most users will never interact with the modlog anyway.

I wasn’t even aware that there was a reason to avoid HDMI. I have always used HDMI for everything. How does that factor into your moral high horse?

Am I the problem? Am I responsible?

In short, I subscribe to the validity of modern science, which tells us that an animal is an assortment of cells, the behavior of which is (ultimately) described by the laws of physics, which are deterministic. Philosophically, I would fall into the incompatibilist camp, which maintains that determinism and free will are not compatible.

This is a succinct explanation of the incompatibilist argument.

You may also find this article informative.

When I say going after the end result, I mean going after the consumers rather than the producers. It’s similar to punishing drug addicts rather than drug dealers. A futile effort.

Another comparable situation would be trying to get consumers to stop using plastic straws and expecting that to solve climate change.

The crux of the problem

Incorrect, it is both.

They might both be problems, but only one of them is the crux. The reason why supply side is the crux is because it’s the only side that we have some control over. We don’t have control over the private behavior of the billions of individual humans on this planet. We can’t really control demand without commiting some major human rights violations. But we do have some control over what businesses are able to do legally.

I don’t believe in free will so I can’t really hold average people responsible in such a basic way.

Ultimately, trying to solve the problem by going after the end result just isn’t going to work. Even if you want to blame the end users personally, you’re not going to solve anything without going after the source of the problem, which is the development of the technology in the first place, along with the availability and lack of regulation.

You could make similar arguments about using computers or social media in general tbh. The crux of the problem isn’t that people are using the tools that are made available to them, it’s that tools are being made available without properly considering the long term negative consequences, and only with a view towards short term profits.

Nah, I’m aware of how many lurkers there are. I’m not assuming that the accounts were created by some shadow organization or something.

But from the perspective of people who are actually getting downvoted, it just feels bad.

She said “But I only vote when a post is actually breaking the rules. So I can be punished for voting? Okay, then I just won’t even vote on piefed”. That’s the truth about this stuff: There are billions of people out there using social media in a way you will never be able to relate to. Because everyone is different.

I get it. But in cases like that, I think it’d be fair to argue that people are using social media in a counterproductive manner. Like for those who only downvote and never upvote, I question that behavior. All of those posts and comments that you enjoy don’t just come out of nowhere, people are actually putting time and effort to create them. And the only reward they get is upvotes.

Furthermore, upvoting is the way that you push quality content to the top, so that other users will notice the better content instead of missing it. It’s a critical part of what makes the whole community work. So if you systematically ignore the upvote button, you’re not being a responsible user of social media, you’re more of a leech that contributes very little and takes the contributions of others for granted.

And I don’t blame people like that at all, because traditional sites like reddit are so oversaturated with content, much of which is made by bots as well. So in that context, upvoting doesn’t matter nearly as much. So I think people simply don’t understand that even as a lurker, your upvotes and downvotes have consequences. It may seem insignificant for one person, but on the scale of thousands of lurkers, in the context of a relatively small userbase like we have here, it becomes clear that they are playing an active role in shaping the direction of the platform as well, despite not saying a single word. I only came to understand this after spending time on Lemmy, so I don’t expect people to just instinctively understand it. Which is why it’s important to educate them.

I’m ambivalent about it. I’m no fan of AI, but on the other hand people were having fun in that community and it seemed pretty harmless to me. I think when it comes to AI, it’s probably more reasonable to go after the companies who are spending billions developing it, rather than the common people who are just using it because it’s there and it’s free.

Holy mother of God that modlog. It’s almost up to 80 pages in 12 months 🤯

That being said, people who downvote AI content can be quite overwhelming on this platform. Our community !imageai@sh.itjust.works was very vibrant in the early days but seems to have been slowly crushed by the neverending stream of downvotes. It’s pretty discouraging when you go through the effort of creating and posting something and it gets randomly downvoted by anonymous accounts that seem to have been created just for the purpose of downvoting. But that’s just kinda how it is I guess, I’m not sure if anything can be done about it.

Well, I think you make good points. But I also think this information that has been posted is valuable.

Instances and communities are inevitably reflective of the moderators who curate them. Depending on the moderation decisions, the communities and instances naturally evolve as some stuff gets removed/banned, and other stuff gets encouraged.

If communities have high rates of trolls, then naturally they would have higher rates of banning. But the discrepancy visualized here is of a much greater scale than could be explained by mere variations in user/troll activity, imo. It’s fairly obvious that different servers have different standards for moderation, and I think that’s a good thing.

While it’s fair to note that this is a pretty raw assessment of the data and could potentially be skewed by any number of variables that aren’t being accounted for, it agrees with my anecdotal experience and therefore I choose to believe it.

Some servers take a more laissez faire approach and others take a more authoritarian approach, and that’s fine because joining a server is a voluntary act. No one is being subjected to anything unwillingly, they are choosing an experience that works for them.

I’m not familiar with the details of that, but it seems like more of a red herring to me. A form of controlled opposition to divert people away from truly revolutionary platforms.

Of course it has to seem like a plausible alternative, but is it actually decentralized or altruistic enough to make a meaningful difference? I think not.

I wish he had mentioned Lemmy, but it’s understandable that he didn’t. Also Bluesky isn’t an alternative to big tech, it IS big tech. I wish it wasn’t stealing so much of our publicity lately.

But beggars can’t be choosers, and we have seen some nice growth over the past couple months. John Oliver fans are the perfect candidates to join the fediverse, hopefully some of them find their way to Lemmy.

Wow. This is a Mastodon account posting to Lemmy and we are getting cross platform engagement and it’s all working pretty seamlessly. This is the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing on Lemmy. The Mastodon users don’t get to see the upvotes though, right? The @ thing when they reply is kind of annoying but it seems like a fairly easy fix to hide those when browsing from Lemmy.