The problem i have, every time this conversation happens, is that cutting them out doesn't solve anything, and that I don't want to be coddled.
The 2 main issues we have, as lemmy at large, is that there are some wildly uneven standards enforced across instances and that we have no say about that. There was that hugbox instance that would ban people for being rude and yeeted itself into the void, there was hexbear that got de-federated for its mods actively encouraging being subversive (despite its users receiving intolerable psychic damage after 5 minutes in any lib space where people are free to call them names, or was that lemmygrad?) and now we're talking about removing lemmy.ml for the fact that its mods are somehow sentient pieces of actual shit.
And while I agree to all of those reasons, I don't think defederating is the answer.
Every time we fragment the fediverse we make it overall worse.
Average users don't even understand what they're looking at when it comes to decentralized networks, let alone can they understand that there's politicking between instances and such. If I were told "you can make an account on instance x or y, but they don't talk to eachother so if you want to see stuff on instance y you can't make an account on instance x" as a rando, I would go back to reddit, the only reason I didn't is that i really hate the app and I am tech/net savvy enough to handle this.
I am a tad more radical when it comes to speech than most, and I accept that, but I do believe that these people have no power so long as they can't abuse moderation, so the answer to the question "how do we handle open propagandists", to me, is to create perhaps a "moderation neutrality charter" and making it very clear which instances subscribe to it, having each instance's moderation team maybe be required to weigh in on appeals to bans from other instances to ensure a certain amount of balance.
That would take care of that real quick. They can subscribe to the charter and start abiding by neutral moderation standards agreed to across the board by some democratic standard, or they can defederate themselves.
That's actually something twitter does right with the idea of community notes, that for the note to be published it needs to be agreed on by multiple parties that don't usually agree in those votes, to ensure there is a bipartisan agreement.
I know this is perhaps too lofty for a ragtag group of essentially microblogging self-hosters, but a man can dream.
I mean, yeah, and that's a concern for a slim minority of people, I wouldn't buy a quest 3 and my quest 1 is seeing very little action since it became clear just how much data is being harvested, but if I had to buy something at this point it wouldn't be the PSVR2 either.
For one we don't know if they'll be harvesting data, or how much, for 2 it's wired and dependent on a computer.
At that point I'd rather wait for whatever standalone Valve may eventually sell.
Not really, unless you really don't want to use Meta products (at which point I'd wonder why you would rather patronise Sony of all companies) why would you not get a Quest 3 for the same amount as a psvr+adapter?
The quest 3 is lighter, higher res, can work standalone and doesn't need a wire to work with a computer. It beats the PSVR2 on pretty much any metric you care to name, except that its screens are not oled hdr.
Realistically? The way newspapers were, you have a profit driven business where the client is the reader. Buy the paper, read the articles.
The reality is that that is never gonna happen again; the free alternatives are exactly as shit as the paid ones, so why would I waste my money?
Journalism had devolved into sensationalism made to drive sales to foster ad buys already well before social media and the web made this exponentially worse, at this point, follow the scant few journalists who don't suck and go from there.
Best thing about this is that everyone will think I'm talking about any amount of pundits depending on their and my political alignment, and that makes it funnier to me.
Same, loved the arkham style combat without the plot armor.
You want to do a killer overlong brutal takedown? Cool, cool, you're gonna have to clear some space and hope nobody decides to whack you with a lead pipe.
Plus the story fit perfectly, and the visuals were on point.
One of the rare times I'm sad to find out there was DLC planned and they didn't release it.
Then don't act coy about wanting to make games as if that's the driving force behind you being CEO of a studio.
Be honest and say "yeah, we have contractual obligations and this is one of them, sucks that they are mismanaging it but we have to abide by it because they gave us a bajillion dollars, and we gotta keep the lights on. Hopefully they'll change their minds.”
The reality is that they mismanaged this severely, they should have either held off the launch or made it abundantly clear that this was temporary and it would have been mandatory in a few months, not whatever the fuck this was.
And it should have never been possible for people in non-psn countries to buy the game in the first place.
I use names off the list of 22 fallen angels from the Book of Enoch.
It's a really interesting piece of hebrew apocrypha that details the circumstances leading to the flood. Feels much more high fantasy/pagan myth than the modern bible/torah.
The best thing is he apparently actually didn't get the fish sticks joke which, if true, makes Parker and Stone the best satirists of all time on merits.
The problem with that stance is that you can't refuse service based on protected characteristics, and afaik that includes access to a space, hence why the "gentlemen's club" died but the country club did not.
I'm all for reintroducing these practices since the people clamouring for them are also going to be the ones fucked over in the end, but I am also white (by American standards anyway) and male, so there's basically no downside for me.
It would be a monkey paw levels of funny to reintroduce the legal ability to self segregate as a means to "protect" women and minorities, only to see a complete shitshow as women executives are cut out of meetings taking place at men only spaces, and black people are even more segregated out, etc.
Obviously, it would be horrendous for the average sane person who doesn't want any of this, but it would make for a really funny few years for the more brainrotted among us.
You’re giving these people too much benefit of the doubt on their critical thinking skills.
I extend the same benefit to people who make comments like this one, despite their blatant disregard for the humanity of their opposition and their expectation that disagreement with them means inability to conceptualise the world to the same level of complexity, instead of simply conceptualising it differently.
I might be wrong to do either, who knows, maybe I should treat all people who disagree with me with the contempt someone unintelligent and beneath me would deserve, I'm sure that never went poorly before.
To them, any politics is blatant cringeworthy soapboxing, and their definition of politics is anything that disagrees with their black and white worldview.
They don’t think any deeper than whether something affirms their worldview or not.
They’ll go from supporting the cops and government taking away other people’s freedoms to screaming at a cop a second later for giving them a speeding ticket because the cop “violated their first amendment rights” or whatever.
You know absolutely nothing of rightwingers or right wing thought. The fact alone that you'd flatten them all into one mass with a black and white worldview when "the right" encompasses such a massive swath of political ideologies to dwarf the left in variety should make you re-evaluate how much you actually understand them and how much of this is partisan hatred and dehumanisation.
By that exact same token I could paint the exact same picture of a leftwinger. Hell, it was all the rage to do so in 2016, and i'm sure you know exactly what I'm thinking of if you are old enough to have been politically involved back then.
These kinds of people believe that there are two groups of people: an in-group that consists of themselves, and an out-group that is everybody else. And they aren’t political, but the out-group is.
They believe that there are two races: white and political. Two sexualities: straight and political. Two genders: male and political.
Good job erasing conservative blacks, conservative latinos, conservative immigrants, conservative women, and what few conservative LGBT people exist (not that many admittedly, but a few nonetheless).
It's really funny to see someone decry the inability of others to conceive and appreciate diversity, while doing exactly the same on a different axis.
What does foreign policy have to do with local governance, exactly?
The US is not a military dictatorship. There is no debate about it. Case in point: you are allowed (or would be in case you're not from the US) to post this and not get disappeared by the FBI tomorrow.
The US has a very hawkish foreign policy that you can absolutely condemn and disagree with, but words mean things and "military dictatorship" does not mean "mean to brown people."
No but the fumes off of this comment might get me there.
Fascists are really good at misreading shit. They can assume ethnic homogeneity.
Ok, important distinction: fascists don't give a shit about race, identitarians (nazis) do. And yes, it's different, that's why I used the word "identitarian" and not "fascist."
Nazis would literally never assume homogeneity, nazi groups purity spiral around what ethnic group you belong to, let alone fucking skin color, they would absolutely want it to be an explicit ethnically homogenous group.
Everybody likes Mussolini
Which, not whom. The pronoun refers to the world in the prior phrase, not the person.
And on that topic, a lot of people really really like the idea of being free to remove people they disagree with from society, either by straight up violence, or by starving them out of work, civil liberties, protections, etc, regardless of political side.
Which is basically exactly what fascism is in thoery and in practice. Fascism is a non-ideological anti-liberal totalitarian government.
It explicitly has no tenets other than "whatever the few running the party believe works" and "you disagree, you disappear".
And I'm going to go out on a limb that since you called fucking Obama an ultraconservative, you probably have a sizeable list of people you'd get rid of "after the revolution," so forgive me if I'm not surprised that you don't see that the fascists' mentality is a lot more widespread than you think.
I never actually mentioned Bethesda so I don’t know why you went straight there.
When someone says "fallout is not political" what I hear is "the fallout games I played are not political."
The Bethesda games are the ones most people have played, and those have absolutely shit political depth, so the idea that "fallout is not political" is valid. It technically is but the message is so dirt simple it would make Will Smith's musical career look like the epitome of edgy content.
Fallout is inherently political, it’s a gigantic criticism of the US after all, politics and everything.
Technically so is calling americans fat and lazy, doesn't make it insightful or particularly complex, which is my point: if a "political" dilemma is shallow enough it decays into a moral one or simply into a non-issue.
It’s 100% a black and white choice that’s there because it’s memorable and nothing else.
I was being exceedingly charitable but my point stands, this is the caliber of choices you have to "think" about in the bethesda fallout games: cartoonish evil or sensible normal person.
I’m not going to bother with the rest, it’s too long.
Sorry for trying to have an actual in depth conversation and not a soundbyte like "hurr durr the people who disagree with me are media illiterates." Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
The Automatons are the direct descendants of the cyborgs, whom Super Earth keeps enslaved on Cyberstan, for the crime of disagreeing with the government.
They are also depicted in Black-Red-White pattern, with skulls on their heads, are deemed to be "socialists" by the government, and are rebuilding coming off of a punishing defeat, sound familiar?
There is a deliberate series of conflicting points of satire in the game precisely to make it so you can read it multiple ways.
Spacetravel is fueled by bugblood (element 710, or “oil” upside down) which the government actively “farms” by letting them rampage freely around civilian worlds, for the benefit of the homeworld. They likely engineered the terminids to increase the 710 production, making them more aggressive.
Which is a very on the nose parody of the US foreign policy regarding the middle east, and the US crucially isn't a military dictatorship.
Every dead helldiver is a direct result of the actions of the government.
Every dead soldier always is, doesn't make their cause automatically unworthy. Obviously in this case it is, that's the joke, but that's not an argument in itself.
Also I know plenty of dead helldivers who caused it to themselves, but I digress.
My point is, the game is political satire, but it doesn't have a single valid interpretation. Nothing does, but this does even less than usual.
It satirizes fascism, but also liberalism, it satirizes those who look at an oppressed group and can't see their current evil behaviour because of their oppressed path, it satirizes those who see conspiracies everywhere but in plain sight, I'm sure there's jabs at communism too (or maybe that was just twitter lefties identifying with bugs again...)
There's a lot of variety because it's not some garbage propaganda piece, but an actually well made piece of satire and, as such, it should make you think not tell you what you ought to think.
I fucking hate tankies, but.
The problem i have, every time this conversation happens, is that cutting them out doesn't solve anything, and that I don't want to be coddled.
The 2 main issues we have, as lemmy at large, is that there are some wildly uneven standards enforced across instances and that we have no say about that. There was that hugbox instance that would ban people for being rude and yeeted itself into the void, there was hexbear that got de-federated for its mods actively encouraging being subversive (despite its users receiving intolerable psychic damage after 5 minutes in any lib space where people are free to call them names, or was that lemmygrad?) and now we're talking about removing lemmy.ml for the fact that its mods are somehow sentient pieces of actual shit.
And while I agree to all of those reasons, I don't think defederating is the answer.
Every time we fragment the fediverse we make it overall worse.
Average users don't even understand what they're looking at when it comes to decentralized networks, let alone can they understand that there's politicking between instances and such. If I were told "you can make an account on instance x or y, but they don't talk to eachother so if you want to see stuff on instance y you can't make an account on instance x" as a rando, I would go back to reddit, the only reason I didn't is that i really hate the app and I am tech/net savvy enough to handle this.
I am a tad more radical when it comes to speech than most, and I accept that, but I do believe that these people have no power so long as they can't abuse moderation, so the answer to the question "how do we handle open propagandists", to me, is to create perhaps a "moderation neutrality charter" and making it very clear which instances subscribe to it, having each instance's moderation team maybe be required to weigh in on appeals to bans from other instances to ensure a certain amount of balance.
That would take care of that real quick. They can subscribe to the charter and start abiding by neutral moderation standards agreed to across the board by some democratic standard, or they can defederate themselves.
That's actually something twitter does right with the idea of community notes, that for the note to be published it needs to be agreed on by multiple parties that don't usually agree in those votes, to ensure there is a bipartisan agreement.
I know this is perhaps too lofty for a ragtag group of essentially microblogging self-hosters, but a man can dream.