Correct and an important distinction generally. But in the given context, what difference does it make? Would we ban a NS-Nazi, but not a Mussolini-fascist? In the brevity of the comment which started this chain, I think "Nazi shit" referred to both. Since both has no place, and both are very similar to each other for all intents and purposes of Lemmy moderation.
Yes, we could simply use the correct term and oppose 'fascists', but internationally, both terms are practically synonyms.
So on a more theoretical note: There are contexts in which the word lost it's meaning. Some leftist groups are quite trigger happy with words usually reserved for the extreme right. I also heard in Russia, 'Nazi' has a different meaning than in the west, literally more "bad/evil", a more general 'enemy of Russia'.
However;
Just because someone used the word wrong doesnt mean ...
The first reply to that comment has more upvotes and debunks it.
Yes, from our point of view. This is fine. My point is, compare to their point of view.
All comments rectifying the lie got removed. Users from that instance see a whole other story. Only now that weird comment makes sense:
Nobody actually has any argument against this except ad hominems, which is usually fairly telling.
The OP article seems to talk about a similar situation, just in geopolitics, while we play in Lemmy. Two parties with very different narratives. One is heavily filtering and censoring, which allows people living in that bubble to honestly believe what they are being told. Because that's all they see, their Big Brother takes care.
Ask NATO, they’re the aggressors that provoked this conflict. They expanded around Russia
The difference between NATO expansion and Russia's expansion:
NATO expands by having democracies decide to join. Note for this to happen, the countries in question must want to join.
If you insist, you can blame NATO for accepting these applications.
Russia expands by rolling in with tanks, killing people and committing war crimes. Exactly the reason why all those countries want to join NATO, to have some protection from that bully.
But sure, the defensive alliance is the actual aggressor, not the country starting invasions. /s
It's unclear what you mean with "that comment", since my comment refers to three distinct comments, and two different views of a comment section, with different replies and upvotes. If you can narrow down your question (preferrably with a link), I will try to answer it.
Mostly stable. A few communities go strong, many more remain silent.
Bots though. There are a bunch of bots merely reposting links to other platforms like reddit, and it's so annoying. Their posts sit at +0 votes, 0 comments, and clutter communities and All feed. I'm mostly talking about https://lemmit.online/u/bot and http://zerobytes.monster/u/bOt. If anyone knows for what they are good, if anyone likes something about their existence, please enlighten me. From my point of view, they're like a (maybe) opt-out newsletter for which you were never asked if you want to receive it. And apparently people are working to make more bots and create more bot instances to mirror more non-interactive reddit posts into Lemmy. I think that's a terrible development for existing users, and severely off-putting for newcomers.
I also learned over the past months how tankies can be bending the truth and be quick with their banhammer. It's a bit eerie to see them create alternate realities shielded from outside opinions, how all that works technically with de-/federation, various versions of comment sections, and so on.
I also don't want to argue just for the argument, and noted we have very different perspectives without getting much closer.
Let’s leave at this: if you ever see any flood of content coming from alien.top, then I’ll have no qualms in revising the policies and making adjustments to the system.
Yes, thank you! Although I wonder what that might help, since you stated it's free software and you cannot control how it's being used.
Then let me spell it out: If ChatGPT convinces a child to wash their hands with self-made bleach, be sure to expect lawsuits and a shit storm coming for OpenAI.
If that occurs, but no liability can be found on the side of ChatGPT, be sure to expect petitions and a shit storm coming for legislators.
We generally expect individuals and companies to behave in society with peace and safety in mind, including strangers and minors.
Liabilities and regulations exist for these reasons.
It’s free software, I am not going to pretend that I have any power to prevent abuse from motivated actors or if someone tries to weaponize it.
Ok, so your previous assurances were completely unfounded. Maybe even worse, your reluctance to see how your tool could be misused gives little hope you would take steps to prevent that.
all the bots are in the same instance which makes it very easy to be defederated.
It's still an action thousands of people need to take just to undo the harm of one bot, or one instance. And some will not know how to, and leave Lemmy instead, which is exactly the opposite from your intent. Please run these bots in instances which are not federating their content to the fediverse. Make the newsletter opt-in. Don't force people to opt-out. Even more so since for each user who might enjoy that service, many more will suffer from it.
Also, since you just clarified it's free software and you have no power to prevent abuse, "all the bots are in the same instance" is nothing but a hope. From my point of view, it does not matter so much anyways. More spam bots / spam instances are added to the network, which is bad.
But there are deterrents, mainly (a) the fact that accessing Reddit’s API has a cost for those trying to do high-volume of requests
Since we already have a solid problem with spam bots, this does not seem to deter effectively. It's strange but apparently it's what people do with these bots.
True, but unclear what that implies. Some people say weapons kill people so we should not produce / supply weapons, expecting less people would die. Others point at aggressors using (their home made) weapons to kill people, pointing at the need to supply their victims, expecting less people would die.
Comparing the track records of Russia (frequently invading and killing neighbors) and Ukraine (not so much) it's easy for me to take sides. But the tragedy exists, which is why I despise all these things.
Do car manufacturers get in trouble when someone runs somebody over?
Yes, if it can be shown the accident was partially caused by the manufacturer's neglect. If a safety measure was not in place or did not work properly. Or if it happens suspiciously more often with models from this brand. Apart from solid legal trouble, they can get into PR trouble if many people start to think that way, no matter if it's true.
If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that's not on the menu, then that's their call. Can be for many reasons, but it's literally their business, not yours.
If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.
Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say 'AI' in this case. That's odd.
I'm from your camp but noticed I used ChatGPT and the like less and less over the past months. I feel they became less and less useful and more generic. In Februar or March, they were my go to tools for many tasks. I reverted back to old-fashioned search engines and other methods, because it just became too tedious to dance around the ethics landmines, to ignore the verbose disclaimers, to convince the model my request is a legit use case. Also the error ratio went up by a lot. It may be a tame lapdog, but it also lacks bite now.
Interesting, may I ask you a question regarding uncensored local / censored hosted LLMs in comparison?
There is this idea censorship is required to some degree to generate more useful output. In a sense, we somehow have to tell the model which output we appreciate and which we don't, so that it can develop a bias to produce more of the appreciated stuff.
In this sense, an uncensored model would be no better than a million monkeys on typewriters. Do we differentiate between technically necessary bias, and political agenda, is that possible? Do uncensored models produce more nonsense?
The real point here is that this tool is as spammy as the admin of mirror instances.
I agree that technically the person using the bots is to blame, while I only ever see the bots, and never a person behind them. I don't see what that changes about their behaviour though. You clarified the bots are not acting autonomously, a human decides how much they spam. I still have a problem with too much spam.
Let me repeat: you will not see a flood of posts from bots coming from alien.top or any “fediverser” instance.
How can you be so sure? We have precedent of bots making 800k posts per month. Apparently, bot admins exist who use these tools indiscriminately. Numbers go up, I guess.
What measures do you as the creator take to prevent abuse? How can you prevent abuse, once another person gets their hands on it?
I wonder if the time people had to spend for removing their spam from their feed already surpasses the time the developers have spent setting them up. I know, I know, you intend your bot to be different, so not 'precisely' that, but I'm worried the result might be the same. Lots of posts with zero engagement, which give people the impression Lemmy consists of bot posts, ultimately driving user engagement down.
Correct and an important distinction generally. But in the given context, what difference does it make? Would we ban a NS-Nazi, but not a Mussolini-fascist? In the brevity of the comment which started this chain, I think "Nazi shit" referred to both. Since both has no place, and both are very similar to each other for all intents and purposes of Lemmy moderation.
Yes, we could simply use the correct term and oppose 'fascists', but internationally, both terms are practically synonyms.