Opinionhaver @ Opinionhaver @feddit.uk

A contrarian isn’t one who always objects - that’s a confirmist of a differ

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

1,074

Joined

6 mo. ago

I don't like that part about it either but instead of stopping using it, I simply told it to stop acting that way.

It’s not a place for incivility that I’m making, either. I just struggle to believe you genuinely don’t understand what people mean when they ask for less moderation or censorship.

Now vigilante murder is bad when the victim is “one of us,” but when it was “one of them,” it was all cheers and applause.

It's a term used to describe a group of people. This is just making up stuff to get offended by.

Nobody is asking for an unmoderated space.

I don’t feel like most people paid that much attention to total karma. The score of an individual post or comment is far more important - and that's just as much of an issue here as it was on Reddit.

I’m just not sure how to improve it. Hiding the score entirely might make it feel like nobody even read what you said. Maybe instead of simple “like/dislike” voting, there should be other ways to react to a post - like “Well said,” “I disagree but appreciate the input,” “I laughed,” "Offtopic," and so on.

Nearly everything has been said before, but because nobody was paying attention, it needs to be said again.

I know. I don't see how that invalidates my criticism.

What’s needed is a cultural shift, which obviously starts on an individual level - but it’s not going to be easy. First of all, someone has to want change - and a huge number of people simply don’t. But even if you do, you’re going to take a lot of hits for it, and it can get pretty exhausting when it feels like the entire platform is against you.

Personally, I think the karma system is one of the main problems. It’s a useful tool for sorting posts, but seeing the scores as users is intoxicating. Downvotes hurt, and upvotes encourage short-form, easily consumed, reactionary content. Why take the time to explain why you disagree when you can just call them stupid and feel like you’ve “won” the argument just because you’re being upvoted and they’re being downvoted - when in reality, no one’s views have shifted. Everyone’s just dug their heels in deeper.

And for that, you shall be downvoted to oblivion. Don't you ever admit talking to an LLM again.

"Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with."

The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.

As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don't like it, don't go there.

You don't get notified if the channel owner deletes your comment.

I agree. There just seem to be a fairly widespread pro-censorship sentiment among Lemmy users, usually driven by the desire to block speech that could be harmful to marginalized groups - but in practice, it often extends to broadly silencing all ideas they disagree with. The strawman here tends to be that anyone who wants more free speech just wants to shout slurs and spread (in their view) objectively harmful ideas.

That's a bit different than using chatGPT in what is effectively a one-on-one interview. This isn't about writing a job application. It's about someone asking you a question and instead of you answering it you make chatGPT to answer it for you.

This decision makes sense to me.

It only makes sense if you yourself are being paid by lobbyists.

I can't read it in any other way than as him calling the previous poster a paid lobbyist.

The Bible tends to contradict itself time and time again, so you can use it to justify just about any interpretation. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells his disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” We can probably agree that if Jesus lived in the 21st century, it wouldn’t be a sword he’d tell them to buy.

You seriously think anti-weed (or whatever) lobbyists are being paid to comment on Lemmy? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying - discrediting the person for who they supposedly are, not for what they’re actually saying.

That’s usually interpreted to mean how you respond to personal insults - by not escalating the situation. It doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to defend yourself from violence. You’re also expected to protect the people close to you.

Good point. North Korea is quite stable.

Doesn't take much to get labeled far right these days.