Plebcouncilman

joined 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 14 hours ago

If that’s the case, it should be easy enough for you to come up with an actual argument against it.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There’s no speech police in the real world, you don’t need it online either.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You know what he’s right. But it’s not because they are black, it’s because blacks are disproportionately poor. So maybe we should fix poverty.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m in the US, we have advertising for everything. I haven’t thought about this to be honest. Because advertising medicine feels wrong to me, but at the same time I don’t have much of an issue with advertising alcohol or even tobacco. I think I would allow them with the caveat that for every dollar invested in their advertising the companies also have to invest in a fund for advertising responsible drinking etc. makes it expensive to advertise, but not illegal nor difficult.

I’m for banning or regulating the alteration of products in such a way that they become more addictive than they would naturally be, but in terms of things themselves I don’t think anything being illegal or heavily regulated to the point it is almost illegal solves any issues. So for example smoking being prohibited in public spaces makes sense because you are forcing others to smoke with you; but who exactly is harmed by gambling except the one gambling? Will they stop gambling if it is illegal? Probably not. So for me the historical evidence tells me that prohibiting the supply of anything while the demand exists simply causes black markets to pop up, which cause infinitely more issues than the thing itself being legal. So I’m pretty much against making any of these things illegal.

Limit the age to which the thing is accessible and put some taxes on it that fund awareness of addiction and programs to help people recover from addiction.

In terms of social media I think the regulation should be that by default the algorithm is simply “chronological “ ie it shows you everything posted by everyone you follow in the order they posted it. Then there can be a discovery or suggestion algorithm as a separate feed but it should be fully open so that anyone with the technical know how can pin point exactly what signals it is using to suggest content. I think that would go a long way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Most of lemmy is like that already.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

No it isn’t. Technology is the evolutionary adaptation of humanity. It would be like a tiger cutting off its claws, or a rabbit breaking its own legs.

This left wing Luddite attitude is simply fueled by fucking tribalism because it wasn’t really anywhere to be found until the tech bros turned republican.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (10 children)

That’s no moderation, which isn’t the same as low moderation. Meaning there’s a few red lines that will get you banned.

If people wanna say faggot, they shouldn’t be banned for life from a site. If they want to talk about how Biden is a transdimensional vampire that eats virgins, let them do so fuck it.

A simple vote and downvote system solves many of the issues with over moderation because it’s how it works in the real world. You can say any dumb shit you want at any moment and people will react positively or negatively. It’s simple and elegant and doesn’t push people into forming their own sites and communities where their dumb ass ideas won’t get challenged at all which leads to them reaching the mainstream as it is happening now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I feel very sorry for the people, but the pragmatic in me tells me we should just let the region sort out their issues on their own and whatever happens happens.

I forget the average person has terrible reading comprehension and needs things explicitly spelled out.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
  1. consoles have mods these days, though they do need developer support

  2. not everyone cares about mods, I’d go out on a limb and say most pc players don’t use mods

  3. this new Xbox thing is not an OS, it’s an app. The device still has full windows in there and it is accessible. But when you’re using the Xbox app windows suspends many of its functions.

The next Xbox will simply be a prebuilt PC and it won’t be subsidized (or it will be subsidized less) so expect a $700-$900 price tag for the Series X, and a $500 for the Series S. It wouldn’t make sense any other way. Steam et all will be usable, as it is usable in the Xbox Ally as well.

Now tell me what would you rather buy? The PS5, which is absurdly locked down (even more so than the current Xbox when it comes to mods)? Deal with the gpu market shenanigans? Or buy the prebuilt Xbox PC that lets you play all your Steam games as well?

It’s fucking genius.

-22
PermabanQuestion (sh.itjust.works)
 

I’ve been permabanned from Reddit for harassment. I was fucking with some guys that liked anime in a non anime subreddit, I simply called them Chinese cartoons and they got mad, bigly. Anyways I trolled too much using that account so apparently they figured it was better to cut me off the website entirely. I would like to use Reddit still, but every account gets banned as soon as I make it. It tells me I can appeal but I can’t actually because that was more than a year ago.

If I delete that account and all associated accounts, and make new account not associated with them (new email), will it get banned too? I know reddit bans are not just IP bans but also use device ID and all that shit. Will I have to buy a new computer exclusively for Reddit? Or does my device becomes unflagged the moment I delete the banned account?

I need help with this shit. I like lemmy but there’s just not enough people here.

 

Since Meta announced they would stop moderating posts much of the mainstream discussion surrounding social media has been centered on whether a platform has a responsibility or not for the content being posted on their service. Which I think is a fair discussion though I favor the side of less moderation in almost every instance.

But as I think about it the problem is not moderation at all: we had very little moderation in the early days of the internet and social media and yet people didn’t believe the nonsense they saw online, unlike nowadays were even official news platforms have reported on outright bullshit being made up on social media. To me the problem is the godamn algorithm that pushes people into bubbles that reinforce their correct or incorrect views; and I think anyone with two brain cells and an iota of understanding of how engagement algorithms works can see this. So why is the discussion about moderation and not about banning algorithms?

view more: next ›