Rethinking Moderation: A Call for Trust Level Systems in the Fediverse
OpenStars @ OpenStars @startrek.website Posts 1Comments 1,527Joined 2 yr. ago
OpenStars @ OpenStars @startrek.website
Posts
1
Comments
1,527
Joined
2 yr. ago
"For the Experience"
No! I mean yes. I mean... "jes", I guess? :-P
Probably it refers to the keystrokes that stretch out across eternity, like control escape alt mother's maiden birth certificate, etc.
As opposed to memorizing long strings of completely fictional and irrelevant keystrokes in vim, like :IDDQD!?IDKFA.
It all just boils down to preference. Btw these two sentences are the only ones in this message that are accurate.:-P
The pessimist looks down and hits his head. The optimist looks up and loses his footing. The realist looks forward and adjusts his path accordingly.
(1) Companies are going to do whatever they want, regardless; (2) the CDC "advice" was never anywhere close to binding; (3) they are real doctors - they know more about COVID and also other respiratory diseases than any of us here; but mostly what I wanted to say is (4) they did not make this decision entirely in isolation of all of the facts. They had a gun to their head, and it seems like they tried to do the best they were able given the circumstances.
But yes, I hear you, it is another victory for conservatives - and for some strange reason most Democrats as well - who want to pretend that the pandemic never happened. But it is not anywhere close to as bad as could have happened.
First, this is (legit!) the first I am hearing about a job that actually pays attention to the advice of CDC. For multiple YEARS now we have been inundated by stories of corps that have ignored that, time and again, sometimes being more lenient than normal (e.g. allowing WFH 100% of the time) while other times being far less. I am saying that this "advice" from the CDC was never binding to begin with. I wonder how normal that situation you describe is? Maybe it is far more common than our media sources have led us to believe?
Second, they still say to "take precautions", which now is expanded to include other respiratory viruses that can likewise kill - e.g. more severe flus that can be damaging especially to the elderly or those with compromised immune systems.
I haven't even mentioned how the variants have changed the scope of the situation, and/or what expectations there are in the coming months (perhaps, although this article did not tell us, this merely describes the baseline but there may be special alerts during peak times and/or irt special variants that would modify this advice, specially to those particular circumstances?). I was just presuming that they, being the CDC, know more than me, who to be absolutely clear, does not have an M.D.
What I do know is that Republicans kept HOUNDING the agency, DEMANDING that they explain every tiny little thing down to the smallest detail, all without paying the slightest attention to its responses - i.e. like a DDoS attack, it just became another form of harassment that wasted an enormous fraction of their budget every year - it's the election counting scenario all over again. Also, I note that despite the federal fiscal budget year having begun back on October 1, we are now IN THE SIXTH MONTH of that fiscal year, but still with no fiscal budget. i.e., the CDC, like every other federal agency, has come upon hard times. Will their budget increase (which seems as likely as flaming monkeys suddenly flying out of my butt), or will it be cut by some amount (i.e. they cannot really hire anyone until they know for sure), or will it be constrained to remain the same (which puts it into a legal quandary, b/c iirc there is some legal stipulation that federal staff salaries always have to increase by a certain amount each year, which was intended to help them keep pace with inflation although who are we kidding about keeping up with THAT in the modern era? but still, they HAVE to do it... except they CAN'T do it, if they are not given the funds, and to make matters worse, whatever budget eventually does get past the Congressional Obstructionist Wall will have to work retroactively back to have began on October 1... or something like that anyway).
So the CDC caved, it seems, yet managed to preserve its integrity in the process, by both keeping its standards within the realm of correct medicinal advice, while moving forward in a way as to "first do no harm" to those who would continue to be negatively impacted by it remaining under attack from Congress. Single mothers may die, yes, but that is not something that I would lay all of the blame at their feet for. With a gun to their head, and another one aimed at their crotch, they made a decision to move forward as best they could. I am not saying that blame should not be involved here, but I am saying that we should forget who did this to us all: conservatives. The CDC itself imho held up admirably, given what conditions they were operating under. If we want them to perform better in the future, perhaps we should exempt them from Congressional oversight, and allow doctors to give medical advice without having to pay overtures to powerful white geriatric men who for whatever reason continue to hold their strategy session get-togethers in Moscow even after it invaded Ukraine. i.e., look at what happened to the Post Office, and the IRS - it is remarkable to me that the CDC is one of the last bastions of government from the Golden Era of ye olden socialist (aka "sharing is caring") United States that is actually most of the way functional. Like, if my car ran out of gas and then managed to limp along another 100 miles, I wouldn't be blaming the car for refusing to go any further! Instead, I'd be praising how well it managed to perform in such a difficult scenario.
Facts do not matter to many (most?) people, it seems, more's the pity:-(.
Fwiw, they mostly did, it's just that it is no longer restricted solely to COVID and now is shared with others.
e.g. stating that people should "take precautions", which if someone can work from home could be that, and/or wearing masks if not, etc. Unfortunately, not everyone (single mothers?) has the luxury of taking a week off whenever they want or even NEED to.
Also, this is just a guess but I am fairly positive that this is based on all the EXTREME amount of push-back that they have been putting up with from Republicans over the last few years to CONTINUALLY get all up in their business, despite barely having finished a high school's worth of edumacashiun. And probably also, to an enormously lesser degree, from Democrats who want to push the "pandemic is solved, b/c Biden won the last election" message that they believe will resonate with the handful of centrist people left in the country.
So this is once again a symptom of late-stage capitalism, where obstructionists shoot the department in the head, then complain how "ineffective" it is after that.
if (canz make profit) then [ do that ]
else ... wtf is this "else" thing?!
It looks like Jemail, but for all we know it's Jorn.
Jhost rider
Very big table, complex operations, much waiting, so yeah.
In this comic, bodily decomposition occurs at a "feels like" pace:-).
Birds DO exist!
Hehehehe, or at least that's what they WANT you to think, man! :-P
Sure, go for it.:-)
"Yes".
God: "How dare you!?"
You: "Yeah but... this thing."
God: "Oh. Yeah. Good point, I guess. Carry on then."
Not my... dad? That's weirdly specific, unless you mean that you threw it on the ground! :-P
This is the model that Wikipedia uses and, while there are most definitely detractions, there are also significant benefits as well. Email spam filters too.
In one sense, it is a lot like irl democracy - with all the perks and pitfalls therein. For one it could lead to echo chamber reinforcement, though I don't think this one is a huge deal b/c so too can our current moderator setup, and if anything a trust system may be less susceptible, by virtue of spreading out the number of available "moderators" for each category of action?
The single greatest challenge I can think of to this working is that like democracy, it is vulnerable to outsider attack, wherein e.g. if someone could fake 100k bots to upvote a particular person's posts, they could in a fairly short time period elevate them to high status artificially. Perhaps this issue could be dealt with by performing a weighted voting scheme so that not all upvotes are equal, and e.g. an upvote from a higher-status account would count significantly more than an upvote from an account that is only a few hours old. Note that ofc this only reinforces the echo chamber issue all the more, b/c if you just join, how could you possibly hope to argue against a couple of people who have been on the platform for many years? The answer, ofc, is that you go elsewhere to start your own place, as is tradition. Which exasperates still further the issue of finding "good" places but... that is somewhat a separate matter, needing a separate solution in place for it (or maybe that is too naive of me to say?).
Btw the word "politics" essentially means "how we agree", and just as irl we are all going to have different ideas about how to achieve our enormous variety of goals, so too would that affect our preferences for social media. And at least at first, I would expect that many people may hate it, so I would hope that this would be made an opt-in feature by default.
Also, and for some reason I expect this next point to be quite unpopular, especially among some of the current moderators: we already have a system in place for distinguishing b/t good vs. bad content, or at least popular vs. unpopular - it is called "voting". I have seen some fairly innocuous replies get removed, citing "trolling" or some such, when someone dares to, get this, innocently ask a question, or perhaps state a known fact out-of-context (I know, sea-lioning exists too, I don't mean that). Irl someone might patiently explain why the other person was wrong or insensitive, or just ignore and move past it, but a mod feels a burden to clean up their safe spaces. So now I wonder, will this effect be exaggerated far further, and worse become capricious as a result? Personally I have had several posts that got perhaps 5 downvotes in the first few minutes, but then in the next few hours got >10-100x greater upvotes. So are the people looking at something RIGHT NOW more important than the 100 people that would look at it an hour from then? Even more tricky, what about the order that the votes are delivered in - would a post survive if the up- and down-voting were delivered more evenly, or like a person playing their hands at gambling, would their post get removed if it ever got too many losses in a row, thus preventing it from ever achieving whatever its true weight would have meant? If so, then people will aim to always talk in a "safe" manner, b/c nothing else would ever be allowed to be discussed, on the off-chance that someone (or 5 someones) could be offended by it (even if a hundred more studious people would have loved to have seen it, if they had been offered the chance - but being busier irl, were not offered the chance by the "winner take all" nature of social media posts, where they are either removed or they are not removed, there really is no middle ground... so far).
So to summarize that last point: mods can be fairly untrustworthy (I say this as a former one myself:-P), but so too can regular people, and since HARD removal takes away people's options to make up their own minds, why not leave most posts in and let voting do its work? Perhaps a label could be added, which users could select in their settings not to show "potentially controversial" material.
These are difficult and weighty matters to try to solve.