Yeah I caught that when I reread your comment. I made an edit, just a little too slow.

Oh, I see. Still not seeing a big incentive for big tech, those meat bags are providing free labor. No strong need to replace them.

edit: Oh wait, you’re talking about paid ones. Nevermind.

Why would big tech ever want to get rid of nasty meat bags when nasty meat bags drive much of their engagement and thus increase their advertising revenues? We can’t escape the realities of how the human brain operates, how much it likes to be stimulated regardless of the qualities of the stimulus.

I think a much more logical goal would be to take just enough action to avoid most (but not all) legal consequences while otherwise encouraging as many nasty meat bags to encounter other nasty meat bags with opposing viewpoints as possible. That would maximize brain stimulation, increasing engagement and thus revenue. This improves the stock price and makes your boss happier with you.

It’s true they’re getting very hard to find these days. I was very disappointed that even NBC the other day, reporting on the House investigation into Biden, had the gall to simply say that “the White House has not yet had a chance to comment”.

There’s a small handful of good ones still, though, depending on the niche you’re looking for. ProPublica is still an example of responsible journalism for instance.

You do have a valid point. When I encounter something they are reporting that interests me, it would behove me to do further checking. There are other fact checking and news comparing services, and wikipedia usually has some good background information.

Additionally, I could check an article myself to make sure they actually do include an IDF statement in addition to any pro-Palestinian sources’ statements.

I can’t help but notice that Five singles out “lack of transparency” while ignoring “poor sourcing” and “one-sided reporting”. This is a common tactic.

Any responsible journalistic entity should be confirming their sources, and giving any accused a chance to give their own side of a story.

If there was a team of downvoters following him around, then the number of downvotes he receives would be more consistent across his content, with older things having more and newer things having fewer.

Instead what we see is wildly varying downvote totals, seeming to depend on the specific thing he says. People disagreeing with his statements would not fuel his victimhood mentality though.

Personally I do check his account once a day to keep tabs on him. I don’t generally downvote though, I prefer to fact check his statements.

The specific college was Brigham Young University, a well-known conservative Mormon college that mandates religious education.

The persecution complex with a total lack of self reflection is truly epic.

Excellent summary overall.

One thing though, regarding feeding trolls. This was excellent advice in the earlier days of the internet, back when anyone trolling was doing it simply as a recreational activity, to have fun.

We no longer live in that world though. People have realized that there’s real power here, where one guy on Twitter can start riots through an entire western European country with a single tweet. Where an online campaign can change the political makeup of your country.

Now, in this day, we have a civic responsibility to treat trolls as we would if we encountered these behaviors in real life, because there is no difference anymore. It would be unrealistic to set some utopian standard for our online interactions when the digital sphere has simply become an extension of the physical world, with all the same problems and issues, and thus a responsibility to engage as one’s conscience demands.

As a side note, one idea I saw recently that I liked, I think it was mozz’s, that people receive temporary bans for any examples of using a classic strawman argument. I think this would be fairly easy to enforce and quite productive. It’s almost impossible to troll effectively if you can’t strawman, it’s probably one of the most common features.

No, there is no real need. An account is already pseudo-anonymous. Full anonymity adds no real value beyond making it easier to manipulate vote tallies with bot accounts undetected.

edit: As a side note, this is one of the more transparent social media communities. It’s not terribly privacy-oriented in general. The enhanced transparency is part of its appeal.

Assuming we can avoid triggering mutually assured destruction, probably.

We do happen to be roughly a quarter of the way towards the next century, so this seems reasonable to me. Longer lived Gen Z will likely be able to see the turn of the 22nd century, after all.

Don’t underestimate the power of shitposting.

That said, the Fediverse products are still behind in features, polish and ease-of-use. The mainstream prizes these surface-level things more than any others. It will take years of development still to fully catch up in that regard. So, it’s the long-haul.

I haven’t complained about a single thing. All I did was try to give you an idea that you may not have thought of, and then make an amusing observation and answer a question of yours.

Not my fault if it bothered you.

I don’t disagree with you at all. I just thought that maybe you hadn’t considered that you don’t have to read something if you suspect you may not like it. This doesn’t occur to everyone, you see.

So, since I’m not going somewhere and then complaining about going there, my actions are reasonable and normal. Since you clicked on the post, and then complained about what it clearly was going to be about, yours are not. Thus, we are not the same, and your “yea you too” comment simply made no sense.

Not that any of this is particularly surprising on the internet.

Yes, but I’m not complaining about being tired of reading comments about this.

You didn’t have to click on this post.

Many people like simplistic garbage. You can’t convince them to like something better, as that creates demands on them to grow as a person, when they likely have other priorities in their lives that demand their attention more forcefully.

This is why McDonalds is the worlds most successful restaurant. Not because it is good, but because it is undemanding.

So, when people think we can pull users from the McDonalds crowd with superior quality, it just makes me laugh.

Sounds like a correlation. Note, I’m not saying content quantity has no impact. I said several comments ago it is a factor. So, that it means I think it is a factor. It’s just one though.

And don’t get me wrong, it’s an important one too. But not the most important imo. It is, however, one we can influence, so that’s nice.

Need more cat pics communities.

Yes, I think we can agree on that. Our disagreement involves what will bring them, I do not think more content alone would be sufficient.