imaqtpie @ imaqtpie @sh.itjust.works

Posts

19

Comments

1,264

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Looks like you accidentally reposted this FYI

Yes that does look like vote manipulation. Thank you for notifying us. Those accounts will be banned.

Do you ever let the kids play games with butt scooters like these? If not I would highly recommend adding them to your curriculum. Those things were the bomb

People tend to generalize and assume a lot without actually taking the time to verify their assumptions. It's very frustrating when people demonize admins due to the bad behavior of a handful of users. Trying to win the approval of random goons is a waste of time anyway.

From my perspective you seem like a normal and good person and I think people will eventually come to see that as Lemmy grows up.

They do have a history of removing threads and posts that get too popular though. I remember several incidents where highly upvoted comments and posts about Lemmy got removed for seemingly no reason.

It's probably impossible for them to entirely prevent discussion about Lemmy so they instead astroturf and try to manipulate the discussion to portray the platform in a bad light. It seems to be an extremely effective tactic, unfortunately for us.

Reddit's obfuscation of upvotes and downvotes is problematic, and makes it trivial for them to manipulate any discussion if they feel like it. Not to mention their ability to just nuke anything they don't like with no repercussions.

Dessalines and Nutomic are criminally underpaid. Lemmy development still has a long way to go and we could get there much faster if people donated more. But in typical Lemmy fashion, people would rather sit on their high horses and throw stones from their glass houses.

I started donating to the developers 2 days after I joined Lemmy and have given over $1k since then. I find the developers to be competent, mature, and reasonable. Similarly to many other contentious topics on this platform, the conversation regarding their perceived or imagined political beliefs is completely lacking in objectivity, logic, and nuance. Y'all actually be gossiping like teenagers about these developers even while taking advantage of the fruits of their unpaid labor. I've seen the evidence of their extremism and it's quite underwhelming when you lay it all out.

And even if I did have major qualms about the devs, I would still argue that it's much harder to justify using any products or services from large corporations like Amazon or Reddit than it is to monetarily support a FOSS project such as Lemmy. Out of everything I've spent money on in my lifetime, Lemmy is easily among the most morally justifiable expenses.

I eventually had to reduce my monthly contribution once sh.itjust.works started accepting donations, because I also feel strongly about supporting my own instance. It's unfortunate that so many lemmings seemingly understand the fact that reddit has become an evil cancer and an alternative is sorely needed, but don't seem to understand that creating such an alternative is a project that requires a massive amount of time and effort. Donating to your instance is great, but without continued development of the underlying software, it's a futile effort. Even if you want to die on the hill of not donating to the big bad Lemmy devs, at least donate to PieFed or something! 2 patrons?!? As an early adopter userbase, we can and should be doing a lot more to support the fediverse monetarily, imo.

Wow. That's a fucking wild story. Rwandan genocide leader > Hamptons beekeeper

Man of many talents. But honestly they should have seen this coming

falsely denying in the applications under penalty of perjury that he ever engaged in genocide

I wonder how many immigration applicants actually answered yes to that question 😅

You have my blessing, go forth and drain the machine. Godspeed

Trying to outlast a machine in a battle of stamina? You're gonna have a tough time with that

Analog masturbation just hits different. Or so I've been told

There's not a lot of content creators or journalists that are actually trustworthy and professional nowadays. GN definitely produces high quality content and I trust their integrity. Always a good idea to support these kinds of reliable media sources, given how few of them are actually left.

I've watched a bunch of their YouTube videos but I'll have to check out the blog also, thanks for the link.

If you have only been here for a month it's not enough time to judge if the culture is changing, no?

Also you're saying two different things, that people are negative and rude and that they aren't expressing any passion. I think some users are negative and rude, but they definitely still express passion even though it isn't always positive. Lemmy users have always held strong and passionate beliefs, it's part of why we decided to leave mainstream social media and use Lemmy instead.

Sometimes those beliefs clash, but I don't think it's gotten any more negative lately. Plus it varies so much from server to server and community to community. It's pretty foolish to paint all of Lemmy with the same brush because really it's a bunch of independent communities with different attitudes and behaviors that are also able to interact with each other.

Feddit.org technically meets the criteria. Along with many other Lemmy servers.

But as far as brands that sell consumer goods, it's slim pickings. Most of them end up going out of business and/or getting bought up by investors/competitors.

This is a good list of communities.

Are you looking to share your own artwork? Then !artshare@lemmy.world seems like a good option. Otherwise I'm not really sure. You could always start your own community to post in.

Name checks out

A good URL is extremely important for growth. But I wouldn't say unfortunately, as I don't think sh.itjust.works users have any desire to become a very large server. We seem to thrive as a smaller, more tight-knit community.

That's the beauty of the fediverse, whether you're on the largest or the smallest server, you are basically accessing the same content. The rapid growth of lemm.ee benefits all of us.

Remarkable growth in the past week, and indeed past 3 months. Thank you for providing the stats.

Lemm.ee and sh.itjust.works had been similar in size for most of 2024 (2500-3500 MAUs), but you're now nearly twice our size!

It's really nice to see this kind of growth because it's decreasing the overall share of the Lemmy userbase on lemmy.world and therefore increasing the stability of the network. There had been worries that lemmy.world would steadily increase its share of the userbase and become a single point of failure, but that seems increasingly unlikely.

Lemm.ee has always been a well-run server with great performance and an excellent admin and it's great to see that new users are choosing an option that will give them the best possible version of what Lemmy can offer.

If I’m not happy with how /r/knives is run on Reddit, I can make /r/knife to compete with it.

This doesn't work too well in practice though, as we saw on reddit. If a new user looks for a subreddit about knives, 9 times out of 10 they will find r/knives and if it's decently active they'll never learn about r/knife. The name squatters have a massive advantage over the alternatives based on that alone.

Granted, the instance based community system has a similar problem where the communities on the biggest instances will have an advantage in attracting new users. But it's a lot easier to overturn because you don't have to use a janky alternative name, and you can easily publicize poor moderation and dissent on other servers.

Without the alternative server component, holding control over certain community names is way too powerful, and over time results in a significant degradation of the usability of the site, as it becomes harder and harder to find the actual well-moderated communities. Using alternative names doesn't solve the problem, it just provides a temporary workaround. Federation actually solves the problem in the long term.

There is definitely room for improvement on the modlog. But also moderators and admins can view the full removed comment and media, so it's not like that's impossible. It's a hell of a lot better than nothing, that's for sure.

Obviously, but the statistical probability of a thing being used for bad purposes, especially in a way that outweighs the benefit of the technology itself, is always higher for a thing designed to be harmful from the start, as opposed to something started with good intentions. That doesn’t mean a thing created to be harmful can’t do or cause a good thing later on, but it’s much less likely to than something designed to help people as its original goal.

Citation needed. How did you calculate that statistical probability, my friend?

Had we not invented our uses of fire, would we have any of the comforts, standard of living, and capabilities that we do now? Would we be able to feed as many people as we do, keep our food safe and prevent it from spoiling, keep ourselves from dying in the winter, etc? Fire has brought a larger benefit than it has harms.

While some media is used to spread hatred and fear, a much worse scenario is one in which no media can be spread at the same scale, and information dissemination is instead entirely reliant on word of mouth. This means extremely delayed knowledge of current events, an overall less informed population, and all the issues that come along with disseminating knowledge through a literal game of telephone. Things get lost, mixed up, falsified, and so on, and the ability to disseminate knowledge quickly can make those things much less likely.

Will they still happen? Sure. But I’d prefer a well-informed world that is sometimes subjected to misinformation, fear, and hate, to a world where all information is spread via ever-changing word of mouth, where information can’t be easily fact-checked, shared, or researched, and where rumors can very frequently hold the same validity as fact for extended periods of time without anyone even being capable of checking if they’re real.

The printing press has brought a larger benefit than it has harms. Do you see the pattern here?

According to whom? How are you defining harm and benefit? You're attempting to quantify the unquantifiable.

Cool, I never once stated that Nukes were more deadly than any of these other examples provided. I only stated that I don’t believe that AI is more dangerous than nukes, in contrast to your original statement.

So you are open to the possibility that nukes are less dangerous than spears, but more dangerous than AI? Huh.

A few points on this one. Firstly, just because a technology can be used, I don’t necessarily think it should. If a tool is better than humans at something (let’s say AI becomes good enough to automate all woodworkers with physical woodworking robots adapted for any task) I’ll still support allowing humans to do that thing if it brings them joy. (People could simply still do woodworking, and I could get a table from one of them instead of from the AI, just because I feel like it.) The use of any technology after it’s developed is not an inevitability, even if it’s an option.

Secondly, I personally believe in doing what I can to maximize overall human happiness. If AI was better at raising children, but people still wanted to enjoy raising children, and we didn’t see any demonstrable negative outcomes from having humans raise children instead of AI, then I would support whatever mechanism the parents preferred based on what they think would make them more happy, raising a child, or not.

If AI was a better romantic partner, in the sense that people broadly preferred AI to real people, and there wasn’t evidence that such a trend increasing would make people broadly more unhappy, or unsatisfied with life, then I’d support it, because it wouldn’t be doing any harm.

Ask yourself why you consider such things to be bad in the first place. Is it because you personally wouldn’t enjoy those things? Cool, you wouldn’t have to. And if society broadly didn’t enjoy those things, then nobody would use them in the first place. You’re presupposing both that society would develop and use AI for those purposes, but also not actually prefer using them, in which case they wouldn’t be a replacement, because no society would choose to implement them.

This is like saying “what if we gave everyone IV drips that gave them dopamine all the time, but this actually destroyed the fabric of society and everyone was less happy with it?” Great, then nobody will use the IVs because they make them less happy than not using the IVs.

This entire argument assumes two contradictory things: That society will implement a thing to replace people because it’s better, and they’d prefer to use it, but also that society will not prefer to use it because it will make them less happy. You can’t have both.

Ah of course, because human beings famously never use or do anything that makes them less happy. Human societies have famously never implemented anything that makes people less happy. Do we live on the same planet?

Your only argument here for why AI would be relatively more dangerous is… “it could be.” Simply stating that in the future, it may get good enough to do X or Y, and because that’s undesirable to you, therefore the technology as it exists now will obviously do those things if allowed to progress.

Do you have any actual evidence or reason to believe that AI will do these things? That it will ever even be possible for it to do X or Y, that society would simultaneously willingly implement it while also not wanting it to be implemented because it harms them, or that the current trajectory of the industry even has a chance of driving the development of technologies that would ever be capable of those things?

Right now, the primary developments in “AI” are just better LLMs, which are just word probability predictors. Sure, they’re getting better at predicting the probability of words, but how would that lend itself to practically, say, raising a child?

And how many people has AI killed today? Oh wait, less than nuclear bombs? Just because today nukes haven’t yet been responsible for a large number of deaths, but AI might be in the future, then stating that AI is possibly more dangerous than nuclear bombs must be correct!

You’re making arguments from two completely different points in time. You’re saying that because nukes haven’t yet killed as many people as you think that AI will do in the future, they are therefore less dangerous. (Even while nukes still pose a constant threat, that can cause a chain reaction of deaths given the right circumstances, in the future) Unless you can substantiate your claim with some form of evidence that shows AI is likely to do any of these dangerous things on our current trajectory, you’re arguing current statistics against a wholly unsubstantiated, imagined future, and then saying you’re correct because in what you think the future will be like, AI will actually be doing all these bad things that make it worse than nukes.

Substantiate why you think AI will ever even get to that point, and also be implemented in a way that damages society, instead of just assuming the worst case scenario and assuming it’s likely.

I'm utilizing my intelligence and my knowledge about human nature and human history to make an educated guess about future possible outcomes.

Again, based on your prose, I would expect you to intuitively understand the reasons why I might believe these things, because I believe they should be fairly obvious to most people who are well educated and intelligent. Hence why I suspected you of using AI, because you repeatedly post walls of text that are based on incredibly faulty and idiotic premises. Like really dude, I have to explain to you that human beings have historically used technologies in self destructive ways? It reminds me of the way that AI will write essays that sound very knowledgeable and cogent to the untrained mind, but an expert on the topic can easily recognize that they make no sense whatsoever.

Cheers mate, have a good one.

Something something Octopussy