mke @ mke @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

135

Joined

1 yr. ago

You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you're god's bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn't be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I'll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.

Toxicity doesn't "work fine," it's contagious and destructive. For projects, it slows progress. For communities in general, it reinforces bad behavior and pushes out newcomers, leading to more negative spaces, isolation, and stagnation, just off the top of my head. These were issues in older communities just as they are in modern ones.

I don't see why we should abandon moderation for your benefit, at the expense of people who care.

Content moderation primarily serves advertisers

I'm lost, here. Do you not think fighting toxicity and hate speech is a valid and important function of moderation that's just as much or more for the sake of the people as it might be for advertisers?

You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?

Follow the links.

So why are you still upset at them?

Link.

I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.

I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn't outright confirmation, but it's enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you're not even properly reading what you're replying to. You're going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.

You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, and if my read on you is any good, I'd rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.

If you think my problem with Substack is "Nazis are there right now," then you didn't get it. I must've not explained myself well, and that's on me, but you're missing the point regardless.

Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, "but how would our handling of this affect free speech?" which is a disgrace and a red flag.

I'm commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn't listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.

You're answering something else, man.

I've seen people defend Substack saying it's not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.

I'm gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there's often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it's not that difficult.

We mustn't avoid this because "it harms free speech." Nazis love that argument, and they're a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn't get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn't get support to do so, because they're one of the reasons it's necessary in the first place.

"But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis," people will say, "you shouldn't support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too." To which I'll reply, "tell me more about those innocent ideas." When that happens, tell me. I'll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We'll do it together. Fucking tell me more.

But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it's always the same shit.

I don't care if it's Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It's one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is "but free speech," fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.

Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. "We're popular with both extremes" isn't a defense, it's a self-report that you're just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.

You can also rent on YouTube, and even buy there, so you can always access your cherished movies in reliable and enduring Google Services.

Joking for real, or seriously for real? The vast majority of people that used twitter are still using twitter. This applies to users in the united states, of course, but it especially applies to those in the entire rest of the world, where elon's shit largely hasn't crossed the culture/language barrier, or doesn't matter to people.

Teslas in general I'm on the fence about, though people should be discouraged from purchasing new ones.

The Wankpanzer? Piss on it for all I care. Damn thing is a hazard to every pedestrian, every car, to the fucking driver themselves. That shitbox's a mistake, and it isn't even a cheap one. Draw on dust ("vandalize" lol), glue stickers, spray paint, what's the harm? Gonna make a musk fan sad? He's trying to ruin a nation. Anyone that's still his fan needs to wake the fuck up.

Some youtuber got a wankpanzer and, I think, an f150 to do "durability tests" with. Since the actual point is to create internet content, and the creator might kinda like elon for some reason, it's obvious that the tests and their results are ridiculous. It's like:

"Oh, no! The cybertruck's frame snapped off! There goes your trailer! The air suspension broke! The stupid tablet became a disco party of red warnings! ...but the f150 couldn't jump 5 feet into the air, and also the door has a hole in it from when we used explosives, issues which the cybertruck doesn't have. So they're neck and neck, really."

I wouldn't take a cybertruck if it was free

You're being ridiculous, why would you seriously think that? That kind of internet opinion doesn't hold up in real life. I would absolutely take a free Cybertruck, I've long dreamed of making my own car bomb.

This isn't America.

But it is. And it's just getting started!

No need to apologize, I've been getting worse as of late.

Re: being from the US, it feels like maybe you think I am, or I implied you were. I'm not seeing the latter, so I'll use this comment to mention I'm not from there either.

One other place I've seen it used is autism communities when someone is describing their feelings about fitting in, or not.

I'd hope they're not using your version of it, then.

I feel like that terminology could be updated, over time. First alternative that comes to mind is neurotypical, which I last saw in a blog post about the struggles of an autist dealing with office politics and implicit expectations. Very relatable. Conveniently, it doesn't define a side as normal.

I feel like 4chan is a US-centric thing. And a niche one at that. So it's a very niche US-centric thing to assume about random strangers on the world wide web.

"Reeks of 4chan" doesn't mean I think you use it. Sorry if that's how it came across, as I don't think charitably of the site. To make a crappy analogy, if Mom and friends used a term that is also used by an infamous group, I wouldn't think, "Everyone uses it differently." I'd tell her, "Gee, ma, that's not the bestest word, how 'bout this one instead?"

And if she's like you,

Yeah honestly it's not that serious for me.

That's probably where the story would end, eh.

So it's a vague term, often used as an insult, shared with uncool people, that has alternatives... Sounds like more reason to drop it? I've said too much already, so I'm dropping the thread, thanks for the talk.

what y'all don't seem to get is it's a way to other someone who othering you. to describe a person who hasnt been through it and lacks the experience and context to understand a joke or perspective or struggle.

Wow, I have so many questions. Who othered you, why must you other them, and why is that relevant here?

you sit here and say it "reeks of 4chan" like everyone who uses 4chan should be ashamed of it. You are othering an entire community.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize othering a group known for its toxicity and harmful effects on users and society was bad. Truly, those who've been shunned by all deserve a place to gather, and I'm glad 4chan is there to offer a home to the innocent racist/incel/transphobe and co.

Bitch doesn't have the courage to step foot where he knows he'd get fucked. He'd rather use his money to destabilize it until they give him a red carpet welcome, which they very well might eventually, considering how the AfD is doing.

That's some lacking imagination you've got there, then.

To me 'normie' has always been a little bit of an insult on top of just describing the 'average person'.

When is this insult useful, though? In this post's context, talking about users one wishes would join their platform, insulting them isn't the most inviting of ideas. Can't help but laugh every time I see a fedi user say stuff like, "Why aren't normies coming to Mastodon? You gotta be stupid to think Bluesky is any better than Twitter."

"Normie" is for when you're describing people that clutch their pearls and their bible when a goth walks past.

I doubt your definition is the common interpretation. For any particular context, there are probably countless better ways to (insultingly) refer to people. Fascist fucks? Folks have been workshopping names since the 30s. Religious nuts? Ask an atheism community, they'll give you lists bigger than the goddamn bible.

Doesn't have the same vibes though.

It might be subjective, but I agree with OP: those vibes reek of 4chan.

My bad, you're right. I tried to check first, but I didn't have the patience to scroll past her claiming America Is So Back because "Starbucks kicked homeless people out of bathrooms," so I ended up not seeing the reposted tweet.

She lies, runs away from OSFM, gets community noted, and still, in the replies:

Um, this is 100% TRUE and WOKE Oregon seems to be covering for WOKE California. Leftists stick together.

There are many people whose work and ideas I deeply respect, but even in my weakest moments, I couldn't possibly idolize them like this useless waste of oxygen does gargling on Trump's ballsack every day.

Because I'm a horrible person, I can foresee that there's zero chance I'll die before doing something monumentally stupid. My greatest shame is realizing it probably won't be as effective as what Luigi did.

This stupid bitch has since deleted the tweet and gotten back to it like it's another Tuesday. OSFM had to put out a statement correcting it. I hate people.

Right? The tech-user bubble is funny, sometimes. The average TikTok user couldn't care less about privacy, they care about having an app that delivers the experience they want. The reason many aren't going to Instagram reels and Youtube shorts is because their algorithms and content are awful.

Similar vibes as "Why are Twitter users going to Bluesky and not Mastodon? Are they stupid?"