Having an edgy opinion

I once wrote and sold some extremely shitty software, most of the effort was in the testing and support “departments”, which were merged as I just had my (fortunately mostly very patient) customers work through the bugs with me.

I think people saying that stuff are serious about advocating for political violence. I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t make things worse. Violence is a core element of fascist ideology, there’s clear utility in using the attention it brings for recruiting, the trauma it inflicts for hazing, the experience for training. I remember when I saw a particular famous clip of a nazi speaking in public and being punched in the face by a masked assailant, I had never even heard his name before then, but after that clip was all over the internet that changed for a lot of people, and it definitely didn’t get him to shut up. Maybe there’s situations where people need to be defended, or there is need for someone acting as a bouncer, but I suspect in many cases it’s some combination of useful idiots giving them what they want, or extremists on the other side who share their goals of agitating for armed revolution giving them what they want.

I support and agree with the concept of free speech and the 1st (though this topic isn’t really specifically about the US). But a culture of tolerance is important for free expression, which isn’t really about overwhelming the “wrong” perspectives with mob rule. Downvoting all the vegan memes to make sure they don’t forget people disagree with them isn’t what I would describe as truth and leadership.

It sounds as if you’re describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the “marketplace” isn’t about which arguments are good or anything like that, it’s about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people’s emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.

Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it’s worth considering ways to not be like that.

Do you think the “cost” of “being in a society” is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I’m not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn’t all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that’s fine, it’s not a “cost”, I am not entitled to or being “paid” through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn’t work, it’s not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.

While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can’t really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.

Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.

Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it’s a legitimate thing to want.

IMO this is mainly only a problem because Lemmy is small enough that everyone is browsing all and there’s no realistic natural separation of users. Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.

Also recently got banned from c/imageai for downvoting “too much”?

My guess is it’s because there are a bunch of people who hate AI in general, and they want votes to instead reflect which images people like or don’t like for what they are instead of every post having a negative score.

Nope definitely not why would I do that to myself

this will force us humans to go actually outside, make friends, form deep social relationship, and build lasting, resilient communities

There is no chance it goes that way, how is talking to people outside even an option for someone used to just being on the internet? Even if the content gets worse, the basic mechanisms to keep people scrolling still function, while the physical and social infrastructure necessary for in person community building is nonexistent.

This is the good kind of AI that’s actually useful instead of the BS AI like LLMs

lol, trying to hedge against downvotes from the anti-AI crowd?

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

I feel like this is probably what accounts for why it’s twice as likely that an unarmed civilian than one with a gun will subdue the attacker, despite the much greater difficulty and danger of doing so

idk I think Machiavellian speeches are fun, in particular if the topic is not about actually hurting anyone

I count 32 total shots, this seems like a potentially fatal game

For visibility, here is a list of ways around youtube ads the video was supposedly banned for mentioning:

Desktop:

• https://freetubeapp.io/
• https://github.com/LibreTubeApp/LibreTube
• https://github.com/yattee/yattee
• https://invidious.io/
• Apparently searching for a youtube url in Bing.com and clicking on the thumbnail gives you the video with no ads

Android:

• https://grayjay.app/
• https://newpipe.net/

I personally use Freetube and think it’s great

If she grabbed that thing out of the air and smashed it anon couldn’t really call the cops on her for it

Sounds kind of like he’s a cartoon of a businessman that the media pretends is real and relevant for the sake of generating engaging content.

From the article it sounds like a mostly psychological thing, like they have been so conditioned to do what they are told that bosses can bully/shame them into staying even after saying they quit.