LibertyLizard @ LibertyLizard @slrpnk.net

Posts

235

Comments

4,454

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Tiberius running out of spells? I don’t think so.

Who, me? Or someone else?

If it’s me I’m not either of those things lol

I feel like people need to think more deeply about cancellation and when it is and is not appropriate. Personally, I think it’s basically never appropriate for random powerless individuals to be canceled, no matter what they did. There’s just other, better ways to handle harmful behavior.

Where cancellation is useful is for powerful, influential people who are actively and unapologetically harming people on an ongoing basis and can’t be stopped through other means. I’m not super familiar with Fuentes but it seems like he fits more in this latter category.

Sort of. Taiwan doesn’t really actively claim that anymore but the politics of officially retracting it are complicated. Someone was telling me that part of the reason they don’t is for fear of antagonizing the mainland, since they are extremely antagonistic towards separatists.

Do it you coward.

Was Gate’s philanthropy always just to make other rich people think he was cool? And now that right wing politics are in, he’s shifted over? I don’t see another explanation.

Progressives and tankies are completely disjunct political tendencies. I’m not sure why you post this stuff here.

It’s funny because there is some truth to what he’s saying here but the logic applies just as much to his preferred strategy of running as an independent. So I’m not really sure if this is a serious critique or just an attempt to sabotage the American left.

I am actually curious if he considers himself a Marxist. Any information on this?

Is this new? I feel like this idea’s been discussed for decades but no one wants to pay for it. Also, the enforcement is very difficult.

Can’t be passed over for the Nobel peace prize if the prize committee is reduced to radioactive slag.

Activism and community organizing is a great affordable hobby. Can’t say it’s easy on the calendar though.

For me it’s 32.33% to death. Repeating, of course.

Problem is people with good hearts aren’t very interested in manipulating people.

Wasn’t it just the other day that the China apologists were trying to convince us they’re abolishing the death penalty imminently?

Well, I guess I disagree it wouldn't be useful. It would give users a place to ask questions, share relevant information, etc. To some extent that's happening now, which is good, but since the decision has already been made, it's a bit late. It's also harder to link to examples of bad behavior after the defederation has gone through.

In terms of who is most affected, sure that is true but I think this issue is somewhat already addressed by the nature of engagement. Those who care more and have put in more effort are more likely to engage and share opinions vs. the casual user who just lurks or whatever.

And yes, of course I (or someone else) could move instances. But there aren't really any instances who do things particularly differently that I've seen.

Plus, I like you guys and think you make good decisions generally. I just think the process could be better and more open.

In terms of the full details of how to involve more users in decisions, well, I don't have all the answers. I think the model I'm envisioning is more one of values than concrete processes, and I understand that makes my feedback less actionable. But I think it's worth discussion, iteration and experimentation to make online spaces more collaborative and horizontal is all I'm saying.

It matters but Trump’s polling is remarkably stable. Headlines are overstating the changes which are barely measurable.

The fuck? Why is no one talking about this? How is this age verification being implemented?

If they actually existed and didn’t have horrific privacy implications then sure but I don’t see that happening.

That’s certainly the way it works but I really don’t think this is a healthy dynamic for a community. People should have a say in things that affect them. I strongly believe unilateral decision-making leads to worse decisions and more conflict. And maybe that means they need to step up and help run things more as well, I don’t know.

I participate in a lot of real world communities that are more horizontally organized and many do have a similar dynamic, but a key difference is that there are many levels of involvement and the more involved you become, the more influence you have. Lemmy is very tiered, with admins having basically complete authority and it being quite difficult to become one. Mods have a bit of authority but rarely have any process for weighing the views of individual users. And that’s it. The difference between these is pretty large in terms of skill and time required, and it’s quite difficult to move between them. This more or less means that most people using Lemmy have near zero political influence, which I think sooner or later will lead to big problems.

I was more advocating for a place to discuss the decision and share relevant information than a direct vote. If any of that information can’t be easily documented or shared then a brief summary or whatever can be shared would suffice.

Obviously we are limited by the way Lemmy is set up and the constraints of self-hosting but I really don’t like the top-down decision-making model that most Lemmy instances operate by. But since I’m not starting my own I guess I’ll just have to keep complaining haha. Maybe the best solution is to just spend less time online since we don’t really have the freedom here we once did anyway.