data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2516/c2516626ba412a715824dcc191c876b30abdcfe6" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2516/c2516626ba412a715824dcc191c876b30abdcfe6" alt=""
No, it’s pronounced Jason. Douglas Crockford was just too laissez-faire to correct anyone on it probably because he didn’t give a fuck.
No, it’s pronounced Jason. Douglas Crockford was just too laissez-faire to correct anyone on it probably because he didn’t give a fuck.
Ah, the rewards of moderation: the best move is not to play. Fuck it is & has always been a better answer. Anarchy of the early internet was better than letting some paternalistic authority decide the right images & words to allow us to see, and decentralization isn’t a bad idea.
Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better without stopping to acknowledge how horribly broken, arbitrary, & fallible that entire approach is. Instead of learning what we already knew, social media keeps repeating the same dumb mistakes, and people clamor to the newest iteration of it.
Well done: thanks for ignoring & confirming my point. 😄
Victimization is all on those like you threatened by naughty words & images who claim we need some great moderator hero to defend us against their toxicity, which apparently includes work-related disagreements.
people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt
And they’ll be objective about it, or is anything someone disagrees with instance of immaturity & someone acting like a cunt? Do we need the noble internet police to swoop in and protect us against your words & images? They’re here, yet somehow the world isn’t crumbling.
So, you’re not responsible for your choices? Are you a child or incapable to predict the consequences of your decisions?
Blaming the democrats doesn’t absolve the people of responsibility. Contrary to what some may think, eligible voters can think & understand their choices. We’d seen his gimmick before & how he operates. Those who voted for him & those who didn’t vote against him did so regardless of the consequences while having every reason to know what that would mean. They’re as responsible as anyone.
For projects, it slows progress.
Your example of toxicity is linux maintainers resisting a newer programming language, not wanting to maintain additional bindings, and being stubborn about it? People decide whether to work & agree with each other, so what’s your definition of toxicity here? How’s moderation supposed to solve that: force people to agree & work together unwillingly? Seems rather authoritarian. People should only put words & images on a screen that someone approves? More authoritarian. And look at those imaginary problems we can solve!
This goes back to the grandiose conceit I wrote about earlier: some people can’t get over themselves, take these words & images on a screen a bit too seriously, and feel they know better than others the right words & images to put on a screen, because of course they do. The rest of us know it’s just a bunch of self-important crap that doesn’t matter unless we make it matter, and we can ignore it or put our own words & images on a screen or go outside.
I think that it’s just words & images on a screen that we could easily ignore like people did before, and people are indulging a grandiose conceit by thinking that moderation is that important or serves any greater cause than the interests of moderators. On social media that seems to be to serve the consumers, by which I mean the advertisers & commercial interests who pay for the attention of users. While the old internet approach of ignoring, gawking at the freakshow, or ridiculing/flaming toxic & hateful shit worked fine then resulting in many people disengaging, ragequitting, or going outside to do something better, that’s not great for advertisers protecting their brand & wanting to keep people pliant & unchallenged as they stay engaged in their uncritical filter bubbles & echo chambers.
With old internet, safety wasn’t an internet nanny, thought police shit, and “stop burning my virgin eyes & ears”. It was an anonymous handle, not revealing personally identifying information (a/s/l?), not falling for scams & giving out payment information (unless you’re into that kinky shit). Glad to see newer social media returning to some of that.
I’m talking about the stupid meme and Democrats once again pointing fingers everywhere else instead of looking in a fuckin mirror.
If you (the Democrats) want to win a political race you have earn the votes from the people.
Fuck that shit. With the stakes that high and threat to society that clear, even a bag of shit should have won against Trump. A bag of shit in the oval office wouldn’t do this, and that—not a flashy campaign—is all anyone would need to know to make a clear decision.
We fucked up. Fuck people. We got the government & leadership we deserve.
I don’t think so. That was our future on the line. Though they may have run a more effective social media campaign spinning their fake, populist bullshit stimulating Trump cultists out in Trump country, none of that should have mattered. Regardless of a weak opposing campaign & inflation, we fucked up by not recognizing an existential threat & voting against it anyway. That’s just downright stupid of us.
Not friendica, which seems an obvious facebook alternative.
Also, I think they’re onto something with their fuck it approach that every social media platform would benefit from. The internet was mostly that before. Content moderation primarily serves advertisers, it was never really for the people. Old internet anarchy was chaotic fun.
What other wonders can we blame on shit-posting?
Could you edit that with a link or text for the accessibility of it all?
Maybe look over my comment history esp re language usage
Nah, too much effort, like proof editing a comment. Better to just plop out comments into the lemmy commode & flush them away with a press of the Post button. Right? 😉
ducking
This is lemmy: pretty sure you can write fucking without burning our virgin eyes/ears. Maybe. Don’t quote me on that.
To compound the situation, the reporting process against moderators is hidden from view & a joke, and they practically prohibit any place to openly share notes on bad moderators, so users can’t collectively gather compelling evidence, organize, and condemn bad moderators.
Moderator Code of Conduct: Rule 3:
As a moderator, you cannot interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities, nor can you facilitate, encourage, coordinate, or enable members of your community to do this.
Interference includes:
- Enabling or encouraging content that showcases when users are banned or actioned in other communities, with the intent to incite a negative reaction.
Again, fuck that place.
Possible, unlikely, worse. The most accessible content is native text with the full content structure of the original. Quoting without compromises & feeble games would be better.
It’s scary until you notice you don’t get banned for disagreeing & challenging their dumbassery (as long as you follow the rules), unlike reddit where the slightest wrong move & it’s BAN BAN BAN. Fuck that place.
It also helps to check which instance a post comes from & adjust your expectations accordingly.
what’s stopping me from just screenshoting
Images of text? Accessibility.
So, another sacrifice at the altar of social media to deliberately break a straightforward feature at the expense of people who need accessibility.
Social media can be such trash.
Illegal content has always been unprotected & subject to removal by the law. Moderation policies wouldn’t necessarily remove porn presumed to be legal, either, so moderation is still a crapshoot.
Still, that sucks.