Other accounts:
All of my comments are licensed under the following license
- 74 Posts
- 370 Comments
I want to say that I appreciate the effort.
Curating this volume of content is impossible, and there are legitimate dangers in giving the government too much ability to shut down free speech
Agreed. We have already given more than enough control to the government in other areas of our lives. We now have alternative social platforms that give us a chance to actually have more direct control over our media landscape which hasn’t been true in such a long time.
you have to build a society that doesn’t want to engage with bigotry, and explore and question its own assumptions (and that’s not ever a fixed state, it’s an ongoing process).
I think this is what they were trying to get across when they mention media ecology. They were pointing out how the structure of where media is shared and its sources can be more important for quashing disinformation than the actual content itself.
So when something is shared through YouTube there are certain pressures that over time mold the source of information into a specific format.
I’d say the same is true of the Fediverse as well. That’s why its important we get the structure here right because it will determine what kind of platform this place turns into.
Edit: grammar
61·13 days agoYeah there has also been an increase in the amount of companies either making FLOSS work more closed off or just not caring about them if it benefits their bottom line.
Unrelated I like your new profile pic.
3·14 days agoIt shows me 93 comments and 2 posts for me. It probably just hasn’t federated to your instance yet.
Got this from the lemmy scripts community:
4·15 days agoYeah it is totally valid. Actually just came across someone that was talking about something similar to this.
Edit: The main idea was that we as humans tend to get trapped in something called progress traps where as we advance technology we use that advance to over exploit our environment leading us to more problems down the line.
3·16 days agoAlso THUNK. Not necessarily that close to what is on your list but I like his takes on philosophical takes on a bunch of technical fields.
Primitive Technology. Heard of this through lemmy. Pretty nice overall. No talking but you can follow along through the subtitles.
101·17 days agodbzer0 is anarchist though.
The point is to pick out the users that only like to pick fights or start trouble, and don’t have a lot that they do other than that, which is a significant number. You can see some of them in these comments.
Ok then that makes sense on why you chose these specific mechanics for how it works. Does that mean hostile but popular comments in the wrong communities would have a pass though?
For example let’s assume that most people on Lemmy love cars (probably not the case but lets go with it) and there are a few commenters that consistently shows up in the [email protected] or [email protected] community to show why everyone in that community is wrong. Or vice a versa
Since most people scroll all it could be the case that those comments get elevated and comments from people that community is supposed to be for get downvoted.
I mean its not that much of a deal now because most values are shared across Lemmy but I can already see that starting to shift a bit.
I was reminded of this meme a bit
Initially, I was looking at the bot as its own entity with its own opinions, but I realized that it’s not doing anything more than detecting the will of the community with as good a fidelity as I can achieve.
Yeah that’s the main benefit I see that would come from this bot. Especially if it is just given in the form of suggestions, it is still human judgements that are making most of the judgement calls, and the way it makes decisions are transparent (like the appeal community you suggested).
I still think that instead of the bot considering all of Lemmy as one community it would be better if moderators can provide focus for it because there are differences in values between instances and communities that I think should reflect in the moderation decisions that are taken.
However if you aren’t planning on developing that side of it more I think you could probably still let the other moderators that want to test the bot see notifications from it anytime it has a suggestion for a community user ban (edit: for clarification) as a test run. Good luck.
But in general, one reason I really like the idea is that it’s getting away from one individual making decisions about what is and isn’t toxic and outsourcing it more to the community at large and how they feel about it, which feels more fair.
Yeah that does sound useful it is just that there are some communities where it isn’t necessarily clear who is a jerk and who has a controversial minority opinion. For example how do you think the bot would’ve handled the vegan community debacle that happened. There were a lot of trusted users who were not necessarily on the side of vegans and it could’ve made those communities revert back to a norm of what users think to be good and bad.
I think giving people some insight into how it works, and ability to play with the settings, so to speak, so they feel confident that it’s on their side instead of being a black box, is a really good idea. I tried some things along those lines, but I didn’t get very far along.
If you’d want I can help with that. Like you said it sounds like a good way of decentralizing moderation so that we have less problems with power tripping moderators and more transparent decisions. I just want it so that communities can keep their specific values while easing their moderation burden.
Is there a way of tailoring the moderation to a communities needs? One problem that I can see arising is that it could lead to a mono culture of moderation practices. If there is a way of making the auto reports relative that would be interesting.
Maybe we should look for ways of tracking coordinated behaviour. Like a definition I’ve heard for social media propaganda is “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” and while I don’t think it’s possible to determine if a user is being authentic or not, it should be possible to see if there is consistent behaviour between different kind of users and what they are coordinating on.
Edit: Because all bots do have purpose eventually and that should be visible.
Edit2: Eww realized the term came from Meta. If someone has a better term I will use that instead.
Kagi doesn’t really have its own index either. It mainly relies on other search engines as well and the indexes that are its own that focus on small web stuff is better done by marginalia.nu which is also open source.
It is a meta-search engine so it takes results from other search engines and shows the results. Usually you can decide which search engines to use in preferences. You can host it yourself or find an online instance to use.
I think the observer shows daily and monthly stats for the active users per month and active users per half year so the active users per month wouldn’t change as fast I think.
Also about it being a botfarm I do think that is a possibility. Actually there is more evidence for it when you see extend the graph to 120 days and see a huge uptick in users and servers at the same time. Edit: 2024-7-29
Edit: wording
I was talking about on the fediverse observer. It wouldn’t show up immediately there.
Not immediately though right? since the active users are a month or half-year. Or does it automatically update that too?
Most searxng instances have a similar lens for lemmy comments so you can do that too if you want an open source alternative.
Bots have good reason to do it, because it makes the more relatable.
Humans sometimes can’t help themselves.
Some dogs like keeping blogs
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)