DandomRude

@DandomRude@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨US Energy Secretary Chris Wright: “I'm thrilled to report that after 35 years, on July 4th, we will end the subsidies for wind and solar projects”⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.

  I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.

  You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.

  I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.

  Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.

  Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.

  As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect.

  As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.

  But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.

  Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.

  If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.

  Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.

  However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.

  I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.

  I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll spare you any “hot takes” in the future by no longer participating in your “community” all together. That way, I won’t have to deal with the thought police who rule over your shower thoughts.

  I can understand that moderation is time-consuming, but it’s pretty absurd what you’re pulling. It’s nothing short of arbitrary censorship, because there’s nothing in the world that can’t be called “political” in one way or another

  So, in short: Mission accomplished—another user silenced who was disrupting your addiction to entertainment with pesky remarks about reality.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Don’t worry, the bots will keep you well entertained. You don’t need to post anything at all; you can simply leave your comments and receive automated replies that fully take your feelings into account.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Don’t worry, the bots will take over here, too—with delicious meals that are very healthy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Thank you very much!

  I wasn’t aware that this was such a big issue in the Fediverse that there are already dedicated communities discussing it.

  Until now, I’d assumed the matter was somewhat settled since the larger communities on .ml now have an equivalent elsewhere now. I’ve come across this problem several times elsewhere as well (the “no politics” rule, even though the post wasn’t political in any sense), but I guess I’m just completely out of the loop.

  So it’s probably more a case of it being a different overlord (the U.S. instead of Russia).

  I can only conclude from this that even platforms like Lemmy on the the Fediverse are controlled by billionaires. That might sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, but given their unscrupulousness, it seems all too likely to me.

  Either way: for me, the matter is clear—you can’t express your opinion here either.

  It’s disillusioning, but at least now I know how I need to conduct myself here.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Can you name a single topic that isn’t political? And: How can you fail to see that such an indefinable rule is completely out of place in a free network? You must know that there are immeasurably wealthy people who have no qualms about buying their way to impose their worldview. How can you still believe it’s a good idea for many of the largest communities in the open Fediverse to establish rules that are so vague they not only make arbitrariness possible but actually encourage it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lemmy Shitshow⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  You could have posted this comment on my post if it hadn’t been removed by the mods at ShowerThoughts because it was apparently too political—at least according to arbitrary Rule 3, which always comes into play whenever something is posted that the mods don’t like, or maybe even those who send them a little money… I have no idea how things work there, but in any case, there’s no way to have a debate on this issue.

• Lemmy Shitshowlemmy.world ↗
  Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩ | ⁨53⁩ ⁨comments⁩
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"influencers" are setting us back⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m afraid, unfortunately, that it is precisely the idea that anyone could understand everything without much effort that makes people so susceptible to utter nonsense.

  This also gives rise to the impression that so-called intellectual elites are nothing more than charlatans who want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes with their incomprehensible “intellectual secret language.” So people end up looking to idiots who, while having not the slightest clue about the subject, explain things in a way that anyone can follow—even without knowing anything about it themselves—or at least believe they understand all the “nonsense” those snobby scientists are spouting.

  In my view, this effect—which definitely exists—also clearly reveals who is primarily responsible for it: namely, the operators of the major social media platforms, all of whom are billionaires that have a genuine interest in ensuring that the masses allow themselves to be duped.

  If that were not the cause, this effect would have to occur particularly among the financial elite as well, and people would be asking en masse whether their vast power might be unjustified—yet this does not seem to be the case at all among the general public.

  This in turn gives rise to the schizophrenic state whose effects we are witnessing today: People distrust science, but they do not question the goals pursued, for example, by climate change deniers, who by no means came up with their narratives on their own, but are well paid to spread them as widely as possible.

  I fear that this problem could only be solved by significantly reducing the influence of billionaires on public opinion—but in our system, where they wield almost unrestricted power, this unfortunately seems virtually impossible.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Demon slayer⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The body of Christ, given for you. Take and eat.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Scientific fact⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The worst part is that negatively charged morons attract each other…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Lort⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If you haven’t seen them yet: Check out the “Lego Scandal” videos by Reckless Ben.

  While some of his methods are certainly questionable, and he does misrepresent certain things to boost the production value, what he experiences seems to me to be indicative of the state of the entire U.S. system.

  While all of this happens on a relatively small scale, his observations appear to me to be the rule rather than the exception in this country.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Shutting down a piracy site⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Given recent events, all cloud-based LLMs should have been included here. In the history of humanity, there has never been a more profitable piracy operation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Goats know the truth.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  That reminds me of the scientists in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld, who let themselves dangle in a basket from the edge of the world to conduct their research.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just april...⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  But he only did that for his disciple Jeffrey …you have to cut him some slack…

  /s

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The look really says it all⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You must have a very fragile personality if you interpret this post in this manner. Your response to my comment only confirms this: truly pathetic!

  If I, as a man, have anything to be ashamed of, it is people like you who, for whatever reason, feel the need to defend the scum of humanity, which is exactly what the two men pictured here are.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The look really says it all⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Here we see two completely degenerate men. And your comment makes it clear that you identify with them. That says everything there is to know about you.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Confused over here⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Before Santa Claus took over, Germany had the Christkind, a little girl who brought gifts to children.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨just like nonna used to make⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Straight to jail

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions some decisions⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s true, but now with the same argument that the US has legitimized, on an unprecedented scale. Not that this is any kind of justification, but once again it is the US that is making it possible - by preventing UN sanctions against this criminal state.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions some decisions⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The glaring inconsistency lies in the fact that terrorists are not states against which one can wage war. This means that there are no regular armies fighting each other, but only one (usually vastly superior) army that arbitrarily decides which targets to attack and who to kill, which is not warfare, but the killing of arbitrary targets with arbitrary justification. This fundamentally flawed thinking was normalized during the occupation of Afghanistan under this pretext. It means nothing more than the right of the stronger party to do whatever it wants because it is supposedly fighting evil, which does not wear uniforms but hides among the civilian population, who are thus always under general suspicion of also being terrorists.

  You say it’s okay when the US does it, but when anyone else does it, it’s an atrocity? You also say that the extreme disproportion between the victims of such an asymmetrical conflict would be acceptable. You do realize that Russia is justifying its invasion of Ukraine in the same way, right? And you really don’t see how absurd that is?

  The only thing that could possibly top that is claiming that a country has weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy it, even though that country has no weapons of mass destruction at all - remember that US invasion? What I’m getting at is this: finding reasons for war that obscure the true intentions and coming up with justifications for extremely brutal actions is a specialty of the US. Another current example: the cold blooded murder of Venezuelan citizens in violation of international law – this time not on the grounds that they were allegedly terrorists, but on the grounds that they were allegedly drug dealers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon questions some decisions⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh, hey, yes, you’re right, there’s that too: the US also invented the concept of the “war on terror”, which has now been adopted by Israel, for example, to justify the genocide of the Palestinians. It’s really handy when you can just “excuse” the cold-blooded murder of thousands upon thousands of civilians with the argument that they are all supposedly terrorists. All you have to do is say, hey, they’re harboring terrorists, so let’s kill them all, including the women and children - the more we kill, the better, because once they grow up, they’ll all be terrorists.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Elon Musk’s Optimus Robot shuts down after reproducing the gesture of its human operator removing their headset⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I can’t answer that competently, but I can well imagine it, because there is demand for it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Elon Musk’s Optimus Robot shuts down after reproducing the gesture of its human operator removing their headset⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Indeed, a case for Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a service that is shamelessly and deliberately named after its historical model. The principle has not changed after all this time: poorly paid people do the work to make it look as if machines could perform this task.

  It is a very popular thing among all the companies that claimed that “artificial intelligence” was the future.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Linus Torvalds on a ridiculous job performance metric at tech companies and the prominent figure responsible for it⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yep, Grok is probably already working on it, or at least getting people excited about it…