Authoritarian, and functional. Crowd sourcing moderation, on the other hand, is tyrannical and toxic.
You are asserting these things as axioms, that does not make them true.
The burden is on you to prove this causation, and anecdotes don’t count.
Crowds are not wise, though, and downvotes discourage the kind of moderation that makes an online community friendly.
According to who? What evidence do you have that this is a necessarily a result of upvotes and downvotes being present in a system?
I am all for certain corners not having a voting system but I think it is really telling how you all complain about the problems with other people’s negativity so much.
Maybe you need to connect with people better and listen to their negativity and the sources of it more authentically and it is a you problem? As in YOU have a problem with being too negative about other people expressing negativity or critical feedback.
Crowds can absolutely be wise, you clearly have never done theater if you think that.
I disagree fundamentally but it kind of feels like a waste to write this all out just to say that.
I wish there was a compact way I could express that I think your line of thinking is authoritarian and wrong.
You don’t get a beautiful garden by sitting back and letting the weeds grow.
What I don’t like about people who are so negative about the fediverse like this is that you seem to WANT a perfect clean garden that photographs well rather than a messy meadow of wildflowers, long grass and lots of diversity along with predominant modes of difficult emotions that understandably manifest during difficult periods of world history…
So many whiny negative comments on this thread, could we maybe start limiting how often people can say negative things, especially about these communities we are trying to convince new people to engage with?
How about we enforce a more strict hierarchy of membership and power so that we can build moats around the things we don’t want the popular opinion to taint? Or perhaps we could use algorithms to suppress the negative behavior of the crowd and let the small valiant positive few be heard!
Do you think people would be more careful about speaking up about negative experiences and feelings if we strictly limited how much people could do it and shamed people when they did?
I don’t know, all of this is confusing and the only thing I know for sure is that I will speculate about how unhealthy social media use is by people I don’t like totally unironically while using the same social media myself and complaining/being negative without wondering if maybe I am the unhealthy one for having the impulse to censor other people because I can’t handle negativity especially negativity about reality.
edit ok I will say this, the problem with the people I don’t like probably stems from them using too much social media AND THAT is what is holding back people like me who are normal from growing the fediverse more and using social media too much!
Microslop profited off the Palestinian Genocide, they care more about this broken crap over human beings.
Thanks for the response! Yeah it is a really nice convenience.
appears out of a bush Hey rocketman!!! Is that you? Crazy to see you out in the Zone even after all of these years. Wait where is your helmet? Also is that story about you true??
My point is couldn’t someone exploit that with a website that has a url matching a common grammatical error of this type?
You could put the chicken before the egg too by making a bunch of bot comments hat appear plausible except for errors like that and then actually launch the website right?
If I “accidentally” link to that hostile website by making a totally normal “grammatical error” how do you establish intent?
From a zoomed out database/admin level how do you quickly tell the difference between the two in bulk amounts of posts/comments you can’t possibly search all the way through by hand…?
Note here, in order for instances to properly federate in some sense copies of posts and interactions have to be made across multiple servers, this is one of the basic security/data control tradeoffs of the fediverse but the positive is that it naturally sets up the possibility (if that is what people want) for data to be “backed up” in multiple places making truly dead links a less likely outcome. A database engineer might look at the fediverse and scream about duplication of data all over the place but that is only one perspective to take on design, resiliency and redundancy have values we can easily invisibilize when we start quantifying everything.
The most important thing for making a fediverse that helps preserve human interactions I think is getting people excited about the generative capacity of sharing and duplication rather than just seeing these as a peculiarity of federation on ActivityPub and an inherent weakness/messiness to it.
Do you think Microslop can use this to help get out of being held accountable for directly profitting off of the Palestinian Genocide?
Especially because leftists and progressives have been pointing this out over and over again while centrist establishment democrats condescended us.
This is a career building move what are you talking about?
The DNC/establishment democrats need to go, they do not form coalitions in good faith.
edit obviously vote for al-sayed regardless
Hunger has to catch you, and with three coffees no one is catching you.
What a piece of shit
goes outside
gets hit by pickup truck
What upsets me so much is that I am careful to acknowledge and try to grow in an awareness that some people need to handle adversity with blind positivity/faith/whatever and that some people listen to happy music to make themselves happy.
When I am sad, happy music feels isolating and crushing to me, when I am sad I become happiest when I listen to music that authentically resonates with my experience.
I can easily understand this is not how everyone is and so can most people like me but on the other hand people that listen to happy music to be happy often are assholes to people who are the opposite of them without really being introspective about whether it is actually their problem for needing to censor negativity in expression around them.