TheObviousSolution

joined 1 year ago
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

Can I join anyone's band of AI server farm raiders 24 months from now? Anyone forming a group? I will bring my meat bicycle.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Except that libel laws and regulations exist to regulate things like newspapers, not things like random comments by random users you may not even know is a bot account. At the very worst, they can only report on what people are saying and ignore the counterarguments, not present lies as truth. Not that it hasn't been eroded, but it's at least much more costly to attempt to use newspapers for disinformation.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Pretty sure Russia's owners of Twitter really intend it just to be used as a propaganda backwagon platform, like China's TikTok, so the funding does not need to be self-sufficient. As long as they get a critical userbase where they can move their propaganda, nerf the criticism, and can't be taken down because of the ensuing backlash, that's good enough for them.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

If those are your examples, then you are misunderstanding my proposition. Some of the reasons you suggest to downvote are not good reasons to me, but that's point, everyone has their own criteria and their own preferences for the comments they would like to be reading over others. By denying them the ability to choose, you are imposing an arbitrary and fallible karma system. Hiding it really doesn't fix it, you are denying the alternative because you feel the absolute worst case will occur. Yet right now it is possible, and does not happen.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Imagine suffering an accident and having to pay a plus because of a feature you can't even use on the parts you replace. I feel this is non-competitive bullshit that is following the trend Elon Musk started, although it probably started much earlier.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I know that's probably why you do, like I said, people feel really insecure about it. I don't really respect irrational insecurity though. Your comment history could also lead to witch hunts, yet no worries there... If it does need to be handled, it should be done by automatically deleting your old up/downvotes and comments. But no one is asking for that with comments either... They only take in issue because they don't want to be held accountable to their votes, even if the probability is practically zero and extremely exceptional.

If you really don't want to explain why you are downvoting, I really don't think people should be downvoting. I very rarely downvote, and there are plenty of comments I neither upvote or downvote simply because not everything should be rated nor am I capable of doing so. It is toxic.

You already have a system where people with alts and moderation privileges decide what you see and don't see, this will happen regardless with information saturation. What I want to have is putting that in the hands of the users. Whether it will be good or bad will depend on the users, and because it would be complementary, you could still accept the traditional or default method. More choice is not bad, it is the users that make it bad, and in this case, they would make it bad only for themselves. But it would also be easy to work this system into something like https://ground.news , where as with a homogeneous imposition you don't have a choice nor even an idea of what is being censored if you don't go out of your way to find out. If it's completely transparent, you could even look through the eye of another user's moderation settings to see the sort of content they are getting.

Not sure where you are pulling the "new users get filtered out as untrustworthy", the system I'm proposing would do not such thing. This seems more like a projected insecurity without specific examples that can be countered.

Without a karma system, the problem then goes back to which comments show up first and which might not show up at all. That's just a traditional forum thread, where the newest comments do.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That would be an argument to support alts natively in regards to the sub and instances you are participating in, and isn't that compromising as it can already be checked.

I don't even think generally anyone even tries to reveal any personally identifiable details to social network account on reddit let alone lemmy. Maybe influencers and people seeking recognition, but they are going to be using alts anyway.

Forget downvotes, if you are anyone of note and people know your username, they are going to spend hours searching through your comment history, and that's going to be far more incriminating than an upvote or a downvote.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Sorry dude, maybe you can read other better worded comments in this thread that share the same sentiment.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

This is a copy and past from my reply another community, sorry if you are reading it again:

I’m at the completely opposite end of the spectrum of most people, they should be public to all. It makes it clear whether the guy downvoting you is doing so maliciously or as a non-participant. Same for upvotes. Otherwise, just get rid of it and find some better mechanism. The people saying “NO!” or that they should be anonymous don’t really have a reason, your comment history is already giving you away and no one has a problem with that.

The worst thing public upvotes/downvotes might lead to are the same things your comments are already profiled for by the same people that would and perhaps a random getting mad at your downvote or upvote and voting back, which doesn’t matter that much with the current karma system. The benefits, however, are a clear vision of where those upvotes and downvotes are coming from, without it you are a blind person in a social networks but with it you can tell who is interacting with you and you can investigate why and even make judgement calls because you can see whether they interact like a jerk.

No drama witch hunts, accountability for the way you are interacting online, the the benefits outweighs the drawbacks, but people don’t want it because they feel insecure about it. I specially favor it because it could be a first step for a form of crowdsourced moderation (speculated on it here), where you can choose the people you think are voting comments to your taste to eventually have a select group large enough to determine which should show up first and which shouldn’t show at all, and it could be completely complementary to existing systems. Don’t want to see “yes, I agree” comments sorting as the most relevant? You might choose people who do not upvote but have engaged with the rest of the thread for comments you consider more informative.

No one from kbin/mbin instances can check out the downvotes you make, since this attitude has been so widespread many don’t report it to those instances. They can see people who upvote, and the sky hasn’t fallen because of it. Anonymity largely only helps the minority making the drama remain hidden.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I'm at the completely opposite end of the spectrum of most people, they should be public to all. It makes it clear whether the guy downvoting you is doing so maliciously or as a non-participant. Same for upvotes. Otherwise, just get rid of it and find some better mechanism. The people saying "NO!" or that they should be anonymous don't really have a reason, your comment history is already giving you away and no one has a problem with that.

The worst thing public upvotes/downvotes might lead to are the same things your comments are already profiled for by the same people that would and perhaps a random getting mad at your downvote or upvote and voting back, which doesn't matter that much with the current karma system. The benefits, however, are a clear vision of where those upvotes and downvotes are coming from, without it you are a blind person in a social networks but with it you can tell who is interacting with you and you can investigate why and even make judgement calls because you can see whether they interact like a jerk.

No drama witch hunts, accountability for the way you are interacting online, the the benefits outweighs the drawbacks, but people don't want it because they feel insecure about it. I specially favor it because it could be a first step for a form of crowdsourced moderation (speculated on it here), where you can choose the people you think are voting comments to your taste to eventually have a select group large enough to determine which should show up first and which shouldn't show at all, and it could be completely complementary to existing systems. Don't want to see "yes, I agree" comments sorting as the most relevant? You might choose people who do not upvote but have engaged with the rest of the thread for comments you consider more informative.

No one from kbin/mbin instances can check out the downvotes you make, since this attitude has been so widespread many don't report it to those instances. They can see people who upvote, and the sky hasn't fallen because of it. Anonymity largely only helps the minority making the drama remain hidden.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I still stand by what I said and only add an addendum, all companies enshittify themselves eventually or cease to exist before it happens.

In your counterexample, the problem is that the founders eventually die, and then the time comes for that company to be passed down, and then you are just proving my point. Even stores like LTT Store and GamersNexus' will eventually enshittify themselves or cease to exist, because they will eventually have to pass ownership and even their owners will feel some remorse if they vanish it into the void instead of leaving it off for their family to inherit.

If it's a small localized family business, it can exist for longer without compromising itself because it will not receive as much pressure and the services it has to concern itself are much more limited, but otherwise and even then, enshittification is as avoidable as death.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The dumbass does not have an original idea or vision in his body. After turning his users into consumer goods, now he's just thinking about reddit r/lounge 2.0 and combining it with reddit awards 2.0 and reddit talk 2.0.

First of all, that only works if moderators get payed or you get some extremely gullible and power hungry ones, which for the first I doubt his money scrounging self could allow and for the second, that's the problem.

It will also open up a whole can of worms that reddit certainly has deserved for some time now, people suing if they are banned from these communities, specially if it was due to personal fickle prerogative of one of the mods. But considering what reddit has gotten away with, this last point is not really that likely.

view more: ‹ prev next ›