• 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle



  • Game journalism is a marketing tool. When pieces come out preemptively defending a product (any product) from some specific criticism, it’s because the company is both confident that those criticisms will be levied, and that they won’t shake out favourably.

    That’s it, that’s the whole reasoning.

    They know they won’t come out looking in any way comparable in terms of scope, quality, etc, and they’re putting their hands forward through their connections with the press, hoping at least some people will buy this obvious attempt at ass covering and refrain from publicly criticising their product.


  • Only if your conception of better/worse is focussed on user count rather than user quality.

    No, decidedly not. Unless out there there is an instance whose users are all all-around paste eaters, every instance has some users worth keeping in some conversation, furthermore political alignment says nothing about insight or competence in fields unrelated to politics.

    A nazi is just as likely to know how to fix an obscure bug in some game or program than a tankie or a liberal, people are more complicated than their political allegiances and blanket removing an instance does us a disservice as much as it does them.

    Refraining from defederation won’t change that.

    Refraining from making the fediverse an archipelago where people refuse to talk to anyone who had the misfortune of picking the wrong instance is going to make that better, yes.

    Not everyone who made an instance on lemmy.ml is a tankie. I almost did, and the only reason I didn’t is that they very gracefully and clearly state that Lemmy.ml is the flagship but not the largest instance.


  • Tankie mods don’t moderate in good faith though

    Yeah, that’s why I’m suggesting making mods of other instances review ban appeals.

    If you ban someone because you’re butthurt your precious red-brown alliance is being besmirched, mods from instances that don’t suck Stalin’s dick on the daily will hopefully call you out on it and force you to reverse the ban or defederate.

    My hope is to make it so defederation is not something we do to undesirable instances, but that they do to themselves.

    The latter is preferable because it requires an instance to be so ideologically far gone that its own denizens would agree with this over replacing the mod team, whereas the former only really needs a bad enough opinion of the instance from its neighbours, which IMO is not a good standard.


  • Man, I genuinely don’t know.

    I’d expect this to be some sort of public cross-instance structure that is readonly to users so we could spectate the conversations and maybe up/downvote, where you could see what essentially amounts to the meeting minutes in the form of a normal thread?

    But before we even get there there’d need to be an agreement and either a fork of the core lemmy code to implement this or we’d need to get the lemmy devs on board and LMAO good luck with that, we’re literally discussing creating a system to divest them of their power and they’re ideologically authoritarian.


  • MolochAlter@lemmy.worldtoFediverse@lemmy.worldLemmy.ml tankie censorship problem
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I fucking hate tankies, but.

    The problem i have, every time this conversation happens, is that cutting them out doesn’t solve anything, and that I don’t want to be coddled.

    The 2 main issues we have, as lemmy at large, is that there are some wildly uneven standards enforced across instances and that we have no say about that. There was that hugbox instance that would ban people for being rude and yeeted itself into the void, there was hexbear that got de-federated for its mods actively encouraging being subversive (despite its users receiving intolerable psychic damage after 5 minutes in any lib space where people are free to call them names, or was that lemmygrad?) and now we’re talking about removing lemmy.ml for the fact that its mods are somehow sentient pieces of actual shit.

    And while I agree to all of those reasons, I don’t think defederating is the answer.

    Every time we fragment the fediverse we make it overall worse.

    Average users don’t even understand what they’re looking at when it comes to decentralized networks, let alone can they understand that there’s politicking between instances and such. If I were told “you can make an account on instance x or y, but they don’t talk to eachother so if you want to see stuff on instance y you can’t make an account on instance x” as a rando, I would go back to reddit, the only reason I didn’t is that i really hate the app and I am tech/net savvy enough to handle this.


    I am a tad more radical when it comes to speech than most, and I accept that, but I do believe that these people have no power so long as they can’t abuse moderation, so the answer to the question “how do we handle open propagandists”, to me, is to create perhaps a “moderation neutrality charter” and making it very clear which instances subscribe to it, having each instance’s moderation team maybe be required to weigh in on appeals to bans from other instances to ensure a certain amount of balance.

    That would take care of that real quick. They can subscribe to the charter and start abiding by neutral moderation standards agreed to across the board by some democratic standard, or they can defederate themselves.

    That’s actually something twitter does right with the idea of community notes, that for the note to be published it needs to be agreed on by multiple parties that don’t usually agree in those votes, to ensure there is a bipartisan agreement.

    I know this is perhaps too lofty for a ragtag group of essentially microblogging self-hosters, but a man can dream.










  • You’re giving these people too much benefit of the doubt on their critical thinking skills.

    I extend the same benefit to people who make comments like this one, despite their blatant disregard for the humanity of their opposition and their expectation that disagreement with them means inability to conceptualise the world to the same level of complexity, instead of simply conceptualising it differently.

    I might be wrong to do either, who knows, maybe I should treat all people who disagree with me with the contempt someone unintelligent and beneath me would deserve, I’m sure that never went poorly before.

    To them, any politics is blatant cringeworthy soapboxing, and their definition of politics is anything that disagrees with their black and white worldview. They don’t think any deeper than whether something affirms their worldview or not. They’ll go from supporting the cops and government taking away other people’s freedoms to screaming at a cop a second later for giving them a speeding ticket because the cop “violated their first amendment rights” or whatever.

    You know absolutely nothing of rightwingers or right wing thought. The fact alone that you’d flatten them all into one mass with a black and white worldview when “the right” encompasses such a massive swath of political ideologies to dwarf the left in variety should make you re-evaluate how much you actually understand them and how much of this is partisan hatred and dehumanisation.

    By that exact same token I could paint the exact same picture of a leftwinger. Hell, it was all the rage to do so in 2016, and i’m sure you know exactly what I’m thinking of if you are old enough to have been politically involved back then.

    These kinds of people believe that there are two groups of people: an in-group that consists of themselves, and an out-group that is everybody else. And they aren’t political, but the out-group is. They believe that there are two races: white and political. Two sexualities: straight and political. Two genders: male and political.

    Good job erasing conservative blacks, conservative latinos, conservative immigrants, conservative women, and what few conservative LGBT people exist (not that many admittedly, but a few nonetheless).

    It’s really funny to see someone decry the inability of others to conceive and appreciate diversity, while doing exactly the same on a different axis.



  • Are you high?

    No but the fumes off of this comment might get me there.

    Fascists are really good at misreading shit. They can assume ethnic homogeneity.

    Ok, important distinction: fascists don’t give a shit about race, identitarians (nazis) do. And yes, it’s different, that’s why I used the word “identitarian” and not “fascist.”

    Nazis would literally never assume homogeneity, nazi groups purity spiral around what ethnic group you belong to, let alone fucking skin color, they would absolutely want it to be an explicit ethnically homogenous group.

    Everybody likes Mussolini

    Which, not whom. The pronoun refers to the world in the prior phrase, not the person.

    And on that topic, a lot of people really really like the idea of being free to remove people they disagree with from society, either by straight up violence, or by starving them out of work, civil liberties, protections, etc, regardless of political side.

    Which is basically exactly what fascism is in thoery and in practice. Fascism is a non-ideological anti-liberal totalitarian government.

    It explicitly has no tenets other than “whatever the few running the party believe works” and “you disagree, you disappear”.

    And I’m going to go out on a limb that since you called fucking Obama an ultraconservative, you probably have a sizeable list of people you’d get rid of “after the revolution,” so forgive me if I’m not surprised that you don’t see that the fascists’ mentality is a lot more widespread than you think.


  • I never actually mentioned Bethesda so I don’t know why you went straight there.

    When someone says “fallout is not political” what I hear is “the fallout games I played are not political.”

    The Bethesda games are the ones most people have played, and those have absolutely shit political depth, so the idea that “fallout is not political” is valid. It technically is but the message is so dirt simple it would make Will Smith’s musical career look like the epitome of edgy content.

    Fallout is inherently political, it’s a gigantic criticism of the US after all, politics and everything.

    Technically so is calling americans fat and lazy, doesn’t make it insightful or particularly complex, which is my point: if a “political” dilemma is shallow enough it decays into a moral one or simply into a non-issue.

    It’s 100% a black and white choice that’s there because it’s memorable and nothing else.

    I was being exceedingly charitable but my point stands, this is the caliber of choices you have to “think” about in the bethesda fallout games: cartoonish evil or sensible normal person.

    I’m not going to bother with the rest, it’s too long.

    Sorry for trying to have an actual in depth conversation and not a soundbyte like “hurr durr the people who disagree with me are media illiterates.” Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.