3·
10 hours agoI’m not. I’m just engaging in some light entertainment.
- 12 Posts
- 110 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
Cake day: July 18th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I’m thoroughly impressed by this article. Its analysis demonstrates a deep understanding of the current political landscape and provides valuable insights that cut through much of the noise and speculation dominating headlines.
What stood out most is how it contextualized recent events within broader historical and societal trends, offering readers a more nuanced perspective on the forces shaping this election cycle. The balanced approach in examining policy positions and potential outcomes across the political spectrum was refreshing and thought-provoking. This piece is exactly the kind of substantive, well-researched commentary needed to foster informed civic engagement in these politically charged times.
The author’s ability to synthesize complex information from various sources and present it in a clear, accessible manner is commendable. By breaking down intricate policy proposals and their potential impacts, the article equips readers with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions at the ballot box. This level of detail, combined with the overarching narrative, creates a comprehensive picture of the electoral landscape that is both enlightening and engaging.
Moreover, the article’s forward-looking analysis is particularly valuable. By examining not just the immediate implications of current political dynamics but also their potential long-term effects, it encourages readers to think beyond the upcoming election and consider the broader trajectory of our political system. This kind of foresight is crucial in fostering a more strategic and less reactionary approach to civic participation. Overall, this piece stands out as a beacon of thoughtful, responsible journalism in an era often characterized by sensationalism and partisan rhetoric.
10·19 hours agoA Trump win, on the other hand, could cause shocks. Transactional in his foreign policy outlook, Trump has long argued that the NATO alliance is a bad deal for the United States, and many of his advisers urge the U.S. to redirect its resources to competing with China. While full withdrawal from NATO is unlikely, a Trump administration could trim U.S. commitments to Europe’s defence, while boosting the morale of far-right European politicians working against a stronger, more integrated Europe.
This is outlandish sanewashing.
Let me try:
A Trump win, on the other hand, could cause an unmitigated global catastrophe unprecedented in modern history. Openly violent and depraved, Trump has long allied himself with several of the worst people in the world, notably including Vladimir Putin, and would do his best to destroy NATO completely while giving overt assistance to forces which are actively hostile to anything European. While full withdrawal from NATO is one possible outcome, the damage would be by no means limited to simple, predictable changes like that. Trump is so unhinged that there is virtually no economic, military, or diplomatic disaster that would be off the table, were he to win a second term.
You need to check directly on lemmy.world, since not everything will be federated to your instance:
https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk
They have 1.69k posts and 3.75k comments.
For some reason, almost all of their activity is during non-working hours in a US time zone. They have bursts of activity in the morning, during a short window in the middle of the day that could be a lunch break, in the evening, and around the clock on weekends. We’re currently in their morning burst, and then there will be a lull, and then there will be another short intense burst around lunchtime.
It’s very unusual. What I mean by that is that posting only outside work hours is pretty normal, but the absolute firehose of activity every day during any non-work hours including lunch is abnormal. From outward appearances, it looks like a person who has a full-time job but devotes almost all of their waking hours outside that job to shitposting at full speed on Lemmy about Jill Stein.
Rule 7 on !world@lemmy.world says:
We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn’t change the necessity of dental hygiene
choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality
You’re so close to getting it. Millimeters away.
I didn’t especially “want” to brush my teeth last night, but I did anyway. Because I know that the alternative is opening up the door to things I don’t want, even more than I don’t want to brush my teeth.
If someone woke up and said, I’m proud I didn’t brush my teeth, because I didn’t want to, I would have trouble looking at them as a source of wisdom about how to accomplish the goals they’re trying to pursue.
Like I said, definitely still possible. It is certainly an action that you can take.
in OhioIf you want your vote to count, you’re going to need to vote for one of the major party candidates.
If you want to move towards a future where third-party candidates are viable, you need to support RCV, so that they can get electoral support without producing the opposite impact on the election that is intended. And then, vote for one of the major party candidates this time, ideally the one who won’t destroy the machinery of democracy which we will need in future elections to enact RCV, or elect Green Party people or Democrats.
If you wanted to mark the box for Jill Stein and accomplish nothing, you can still do that. Nothing has changed. I don’t recommend it, but it’s definitely still possible.
2·2 days agoSounds good. If you redid the import, I think you’ll want to make some manual fixes to the .json. Off the top of my head, I think you just need to add bbc.co.uk and aljazeera.com to the URL lists for those sources.
5·3 days agoI never abused the report system. That was the mod of News abusing the rule, I only ever reported stuff hurled at me which never ever got removed even when it was very obvious personal attacks or other people doing exactly what I had a comment removed for.
Can you link to some examples of people abusing you? You don’t have to spend a ton of time on it if you don’t want to. I’m just curious.
Moderation is never completely fair. It can’t be. I’m just saying that by some coincidence, the moderators that interacted with you are some of the only ones who I tend to agree with a lot of the time.
And I 100% will admit that I’ve called for the removal of Israel. I don’t view that as the negative FlyingSquid does.
It’s not just FlyingSquid. I think calling for “removing” Moscow, or Washington, or Israel, or Gaza, or Ukraine, for whatever reasons of geopolitical argument, would lead to your removal from most communities outside of the instances that tend to get defederated.
You can hold whatever views you want, but surely breaking the community rules on purpose by speaking about them, and then getting banned, isn’t a confusing outcome.
I moderate differently than I comment. Moderation for me is only about removing spam etc or obvious bad actors, people voting are what determines what’s visible not what I’ve decided should be allowed.
Maybe so. It could work fine. Definitely having you be a member of the community instead of someone coming from above, and open about what you’re doing and why, is a step in the right direction. I’m just saying that moderation is hard and thankless work that is going to bring you into contact with a lot of obnoxious people, and refraining from becoming obnoxious or unfair yourself, as you deal with that day in and day out, is a lot more difficult than it seems like it would be.
My guess is that a good portion of that comes down to the quality and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Lemmy built-in moderation tools. Combined with volunteer moderation and a presidential election year in the US, and I’m sure the moderation load is close to overwhelming and they don’t really have the tools they need to be more sophisticated or efficient about it.
I completely agree. I have a whole mini-essay that I’ve been meaning to write about this, about problems of incentives and social contracts on Lemmy-style servers in the fediverse that I think lead to a lot of these issues that keep cropping up.
Your actor (
https://lemmy.today/u/tal)'s public key is:-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA1VR4k0/gurS2iULVe7D6 xwlQNTeEsn0EOVuGC2e9ZBPHv4b02Z8mvuJmWIcLxWmaL+cgHu2cJCWx2lxNYyfQ ivorluJHQcwPtkx9B0gFBR5SHmQzMuk6cllDMhfqUBCONiy5cpYRIs4LBpChV4vg frSquHPl+5LvEs1jgCZnAcTtJZVKBRISNhSp560ftntlFATMh/hIFG2Sfdi3V3+/ 0nf0QDPm77vqykj2aUk8RnnkMG2KfPwSdJMUhHQ6HQZS+AZuZ7Q+t5bs8bISFeLR 6uqJHcrXtvOIXuFe7d/g/MKjqURaSh/Pqet8dVIwvLFFr5oNkcKhWG1QXL1k62Tr owIDAQAB -----END PUBLIC KEY-----All ActivityPub users have their own private keys. I’m not completely sure, and I just took a quick look through the code and protocols and couldn’t find the place where vote activity signatures are validated. But I swear I thought that all ActivityPub activities including votes were signed with the key of the actor that did them.
Regardless, I know that when votes federate, they do get identified according to the person who did the vote.
In practice, you are completely correct that the trust is per-instance, since the instance DB keeps all the actor private keys anyway, so it’s six of one vs. half dozen of the other whether you have 100 fake votes from bad.instance signed with that instance’s TLS key, or 100 fake votes signed with individual private keys that bad.instance made up. I’m just nitpicking about how it works at a protocol level.
That’s not quite true. If a community was resolved but no one’s currently subscribed to it, for example because someone searched for it or subscribed and then unsubscribed, you’ll see exactly the situation that you’re looking at. You’ll see partial content and almost no votes.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip and !politics@sh.itjust.works are the best news communities I’m aware of.
Especially with “scaled” sorting, there’s no real downside to subscribing to any number of them, but if I had to pick one for each category, those would be the ones. Mostly, my metric is that interesting stories reliably come across the feed without a lot of dreck.
It’s very obvious that someone is doing deliberate astroturfing on Lemmy. How much is an open question, but some amount of it is definitely happening.
The open question, to me, is why the .world moderation team seems so totally uninterested in dealing with the topic. For example, they’re happy for UniversalMonk to spam for Jill Stein in a way that openly violates the rules, that almost every single member of the community is against, and that objectively makes the community worse. Why that is happening is a baffling and interesting question to me.
“This magazine is not receiving updates” is why it’s out of sync. It’s no different than a Lemmy instance which isn’t syncing updates from a community. You’ll be able to see the community, and sometimes see some content on it, but it’ll be missing most of the votes. Also, when you first subscribe to a community, you’ll get a handful of recent posts, but none of the votes, so you’ll see content with the voting all wrong.
Mbin might also be flaky about syncing with Lemmy instances, but that’s not the reason in this case that the votes are out of sync.
I looked over the votes for a couple of the posts in !world@quokk.au. I’ve seen voting in that past that seemed faked, but nothing in this community jumped out at me.
As much as I’m in favor of a !world community that isn’t on lemmy.world, because there’s clearly some kind of rot going on there, I’m not sure how good an idea it is to have someone who’s habitually gotten their own stuff banned in the past be the boss of a new community. He didn’t get banned for tangling with the mods, he got banned for advocating violence, abusing the report feature, and things like that.
Of course, diversity is good, obviously. Let’s see what he does with it.
Maybe it could be addressed with cryptographically-signed votes
That is how it works, I believe. Each vote has to be signed by the actor of the user that voted.
There have been people who did transparent vote-stuffing by creating fake accounts en masse and get detected, because they were using random strings of letters for the usernames. Probably it’s happened more subtly than that and not been detected sometimes, too, but it’s not quite as simple as just reporting a high number.
Apology accepted. Have a good one.
I’ve done something like this, with RSS feeds. Read !meta@rss.ponder.cat to see the existing communities, and how to add a feed to an existing community.
The concern about spam is real. A lot of these exist, for example one for Hacker News and a whole instance for Reddit, and a lot of people including myself don’t like those. I agree with you that it’s a good idea but it’s necessary to be careful that it remains a useful seed of content and not an overwhelming spew.