News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
My ass. I wish the mods had banned obviously disingenuous "let's let Trump win to make a point, what's the difference anyway" made-up critique that blamed Kamala Harris for Gaza and inflation, under a tissue-thin pretense of "I just care about the country sooooooooooooooooooooo much that I'm giving well informed constructive criticism." Instead we had to just yell at y'all about it in the comments, which since there were hundreds of posts and comments every single day with that viewpoint was always a losing battle. Even trolling of crayon-quality transparency of the UniversalMonk variety was explicitly allowed by the mods, and people who objected to it too strongly got banned for it.
The whining about how you're not allowed to get your message out, which is constantly broadcasted on every channel where you're claiming you're being silenced, is just part and parcel of the alternate reality you're having a good bit of success in constructing. MAGA does it too, it's part of the package.
You do understand that your cynical lying about the past is why your camp is losing the argument? I mean, I don't dislike you, at least not personally, and and even if I have to drag you by the hair onto the right side of history, I'll at least afford you the charity required for you to fix yourself.
There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up. It doesn't help your following arguments to simply lie about a reality people can easily go reference for themselves, if they didn't live the experience themselves, as many of us have. A conjecture rooted in the same cynicism that cost us the election.
Now as before, your cynical misrepresentation of the arguments which were made also works against you. We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election. And we had the same claims you are levying, here, now, levied against us them. That we were secret Trump supporters. That we were the ones costing the Democrats the election. And then, as it does, the truth of the matter has a way of finding itself out. And we who stayed focus on an accurate and valid criticisms we're proven right. In-spite of this, and this is the true cost of cynicism, you continued to reject the analysis and criticism of those who got it right. Instead of showing grace and changing, yours doubled down on your wrongness, when even the beltway insiders had the humility to recognize how wrong they'd been. No. No instead you embraced the worst instinct: to double down on the cynicism. Harris needed to pivot away from Biden's policies and political techniques to come back in the extra innings she was afforded. But no. The cynics won the side-line arguments on how to handle the extra time we got on the clock (and let us not forget, these same cynics were the ones arguing against replacing Biden), and we all suffer because.
We should listen to the people who got it right, to begin with, and who stayed right the whole time. We should ignore those who are guided by cynicism and fear. Sacrificing your values for billionaire donations isn't just morally abhorrent: Its also bad strategy.
Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.
I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones, and all the forces that marshaled a variety of bad-faith bullshit against Biden would start to do the same against Harris, and people in this country literally can't tell up from down when it comes to the election. And, in the election, that's what happened.
A lot of what you're saying happened also, yes. I'm genuinely confused about how you're accusing me of being cynical about it or telling the Democrats to be more right wing. What statements did I make that led you to think that?
Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.
This absolute baldfaced refusal to accept reality from Democrat loyalists up and down the party structure, makes the whole party look unserious. Team sports, ‘my guy can do no wrong’ horseshit that they also see from the MAGAs, but team red talks game about inflation and the economy - and isn’t the incumbent seen as responsible for it.
What? No, not even slightly. I'm saying that the people who are extensively hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork, the media pretending that Trump was a controversial but ultimately capable businessman who would fix the economy that was hurting them so badly, and any particular thing the Democrats did wrong was justification for having a multi-week freakout, and also the fact that most Americans get their political news from TikTok and Facebook if they get it at all.
Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.
I agree (and did), but posting that context often was dismissed with “it’s election season, quit posting FUD if you’re not a troll/bad-faith”. Y'all weren’t there for the discussion even - as was shown with Gaza.
But the basic fact is that the candidate(s) and party apparatus either: A) Fundamentally failed to read the room and see the obvious discontent and voter backlash over several policy stances and material realities, or B) Knew all that and still decided to run the campaign they wanted to, whilst cynically wielding the Republicans as a worse option to impel democrat voters on the left, so they could run to the center and abandon the working class to the Republicans
Nobody forced them or their staffers to pick option B, even as their own internal polling showed their defeat was all but assured under option B. And here we are.
So when do I get to play the ‘Quit spreading FUD’ card then? Because as you said, if nothing was going to fundamentally change re:platform, why not present a new and younger candidate after Biden’s cognitive meltdown, and claw back some of the party’s reputation with the electorate? Why not hold a ‘speed primary’? Why let cynicism win out and accept Biden drowning the party with him, because ‘nobody else can do better’ while he’s an elder lich that refuses to let go of power?
Honestly, I'm just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.
I'll keep it short: No one from the DNC is on Lemmy. When you post on Lemmy, you're not successfully talking any sense into the Democrats. You're speaking to people who are deciding how to vote, whether to vote, how to get involved with activist organizations, and also just in a truth telling sense helping all of us make sense of what's going on. The problems in American politics go way deeper than one candidate or one party. You are not saving the Democrats by making these recommendations, although they're not really wrong, but you are attempting to take 100% of the oxygen away from other problems (which are also very real) which we are all similarly mostly-powerless to fix but which are also significant problems.
You're also arguing against a bunch of stuff that I, at least, never said, which I understand is fun to do but it's not real productive for us making sense to one another. I'm happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first: Find 5-10 different examples of me talking about Gaza, what a problem it was, and how Biden was complicit in it. Once you've done that (it should take literally one text search, use the @[email protected] account since this one is new), we can chat.
…then stop posting/lurking in .world then? Or accept that it’s not your backyard, and you have different views?
Doubtful, though I’d still hold out for some Linux-hatted staffer Venn intersection. But I’m sure that web crawlers and API scrapers are, which do feed into data sets used to judge people’s opinions. And there’s definitely a lot of neoliberals who lurk and comment, amongst other political stripes.
Lmao if you actually want to genuinely talk to some, that line is condescending as fuck and you should never use it. And re: Gaza? Just scroll up, you brought up Gaza in your first reply in this comment thread - unprompted. Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?
I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.
Sounds like you're not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I'm not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.
You read my exasperation as hostility, because my initial reply was to a lot of your hand waving that ‘anyone would have been as bad as Biden’ completely sidesteps his obvious cognitive state, and the withering voter enthusiasm he carried both in and out of the party.
Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?
You got challenged on a massive point of context, confirmed your actual position, to which I agreed and then pivoted to their doomed strategy of ‘I wouldn’t do anything differently’ was a failure from the jump, and your response is cynical elitism? Good luck convincing others dude
👋
Lol I mean being straight with you and responding factually to what you were saying, responding substantively and clarifying, definitely didn't work. Oh well. Also, "cynical" at least in the original meaning doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yes and no. Yes I can, in that I've built out at least some of the tools to do so. I can't in that I'm still at work today and haven't returned to that project in quite a while.
So anyone can look it up, but in order to look it up, you'd have to build some tools and it's a whole project?
I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced. I could dig far enough into my comment history to find them. In-fact I was digging through some banned community members and found some examples just the other day.
What I'm doing is far, far larger in scope. I'm not trying to find one instance, I'm trying to find all of them. I'm also interested in correlating that to "shifts in the overall narrative" to the sub. And I'm trying to do this across several prominent subs. And I'm not doing this in an adhoc way. When I have results they'll be publishable.
I've built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc.. but some aspects aren't reliable enough yet to be completely useful.
This is some example output using flyingsqids data: https://tmpweb.net/jS19ePfgNdz0/
(scroll to the bottom, then scroll up instead of starting at the top)
The first analysis is a "trolling/ not trolling" analysis. Then its a frequency analysis. I used squid because of their preposterous number of comments. Some weeks they were commenting almost ever 3 minutes for hours on end.
If life we're simpler I'd be further along on this project, but alas, the bills. They do not pay themselves. And its a hobby thing I'm not getting paid for, so its the last to get access to my time.
this sounds gross and very much like witch-hunting and stalking. yes, all comments are public but u coming up w a tool just to find someones and analyze and make judgement on them seems gross and out of line. think of how fasicst and controling that sounds. what if some republican was doing that and bragged about it? think about that
Could you find some examples from memory that you experienced, for me?
I feel like we keep having the same conversation here.
Ozma's ban comes to mind pretty lazily. But I'm not trying to do additional work on your behalf right now. I just had a long day and I'm done working for now.
return2ozma was banned because he was posting a nonstop flood of articles, and admitted to the mods that he basically just searched out bad stories about Biden and posted them whatever they were (even some ones he didn't try to defend any kind of factual accuracy of), to bring "balance."
I actually don't agree with making that the criterion. I think it's of a piece with lots of types of lazy and unproductive moderation that happpens on lemmy.world. But, I definitely agreed with banning him, for the same reason that I would expect to be banned if I went to your favorite community and posted 15 stories a day about "Five things you won't believe about what Biden accomplished during his term in office!" It's not about the viewpoint being prohibited from anyone expressing it (and, of course, the fact that we're having this conversation and you haven't been banned for expressing criticism of the Democrats is an obvious counterexample to you trying to say that's banned on LW). It's about one person spamming to try to promote it.
You said anyone could do it, you said it was super easy, just from memory. We'd be having a different conversation if you'd said "Anyone who felt like taking a bunch of time away from their job could probably put together a script to comb through the whole database to find the single example you're looking for, because I'm sure at least one exists, although I can't do that whole endeavor right now I'm confident that it would work if someone did do it. I'm very tired and such a thing would be horrifying and unfair if someone asked me to do it. I just know some other person who had a lot of energy to spare could."
I mean this isn't really a conversation. this has been me asking as gracefully as I can to step away from the conversation and come back to it another time, and you insisting on continuing.
I think it's a pretty normal thing for one person to say "Anyone who tried to criticize Democrats gets banned" and one person to say "When did that happen?" It's not like I am hounding you to do my math homework. It was only in your mind that it blew up into a "task" for you to come up with an example.
Like I say, this is why I don't really go to lemmy.world. The rules are different. People make proclamations about how it is, and then get all bent out of shape if someone expresses skepticism, like it's a horrible unreasonable thing.
Feel free to take as much time as you need. I understand that finding examples of what you're talking about might be challenging. I support you in the mission.
(Edit: Oh, also, we're not on a phone call. Stepping away from Lemmy instead of replying to me, if you don't have a reply yet, is sort of implied in the asynchronous nature of the thing.)
(back at work and on a real key board now so I can do longer formed responses)
But this is also why we need the tools I'm building. What I'm talking about can only really be "witnessed", outside of anectdata, in the aggregate. If you wanted to help, I'm need to find specific instances of this happening and the Ozma one is low hanging fruit because the mod who did the ban said in precise language that it was being done in an effort to control the narrative (regardless of if you agree with the editorial bias or not, I think we take jordan at their word). Agreeing with the political bias of the ban, doesn't mean it wasn't an example of an authority (a mod) using that authority to structure the political narratives of the commons, which is what I'm trying to identify.
Specifically, there are a few mods who regularly were getting into flaming arguments which would result in them banning the counter party. flyingsquid was notorious for this, and its a task I need to do to validate a system for automatically identifying its occurrence. I need a couple real examples, so if you find any, send them my way. Some other good subs to look for are c/world and c/political_memes. Squid would regularly flame people then ban them.
And as far as "endless stream"; thanks, because that gave me another task to put on the to do list. What Ozma got banned for isn't actually what I'm really looking for (although it could be, but its beyond my original scope). What I'm really looking for are bans related to things that happen in the comments. But it would be important to getting a complete picture to also look at someones posts and maybe try and look at how that impacts narratives. That's a much more difficult process though, but I'm sure in review we'd get asked why we didn't do that.
so can u tell me more about this project wen u have time? I previously commented to you that I think it's sick. but are you using it to attack users or to find out bad mod actions and proof of mods and admins and people like @[email protected] who obsess and witchhunt people they disagree with?
Certainly! I can also give you code you can work and play around with yourself. I'm more than happy to send you some boiler plate you can play around with yourself.
Well, not really any of the above. I've tried with some mild success to build a "troll detection" system, but it needs far more work. Also, in the months since my initial work on this matter, I've found some far better approaches and would want to implement them. So my old work isn't reflective of the new direction I'm planning to take.
Fundamentally, I'm interested in these things from an academic perspective. How do conversations (debate) online work? What governs them? There are obviously rules (you can read them on the side bar), but there are also "rules" that aren't written on the side bar. What are the unwritten rules?
What does it take to "change" someones mind? Or, more broadly, what does it take to change a communities mind? How do power dynamics play into that? For example, you've probably read my thread with @[email protected] at this point about the power mods have to steer the direction of a community.
Part of the reason I'm interested in this is because its part of my lived experience. I watch how myself and others were, frankly, absolutely brigaided against, for months, years on end, for holding critical but important positions on the Democratic party. It was very, very bad. We had opinions that were not very popular at the time and suffered as a result. But things changed, and time has shown we were right in our criticism. So what dynamics were at play that resulted in those perspectives being at first oppressed/ suppressed, to then become the dominant narratives? How does that work? What is its function?
Beyond that, I'm a quantitative person. I want a number at the end of the day; as shocking as it might be with all my discussion of narrative, at the end of the day I want a number, something solid I can stand on. So doing this kind of work in my own way, I want to find a way to quantify these things. Its not enough for me to simply look at an encode the stories; I want to put a number on it. That means building things up to be reproducible and automated to support large, if not census, level samples.
Finally, I really like doing network analysis. Its something I do professionally, but its just something I think is neat. Taking all of those previous questions and putting them into the context of a social network, thats something that sounds really challenging and fun to me.
And in regard to your other question:
I mean, you do realize that anyone, quite literally anyone, could form a 1 person instance and vacuum up all comment, post, etc.. data from every other instance? I don't have issue with it, in the same manner that I don't have issue someone going through all 9k of my comments and reading them. If I didn't want them to be made public, I wouldn't make those comments. There are things I don't say because I don't want that information to be made public. Fundamentally these things are about power dynamics. For something to be fascistic or controlling I would have to have power over someone or something. I don't. I have no secret access to any secret information, I have no power over any one or any thing. I'm simply working with and observing what is present.
This is a somewhat famous thread here that I recommend you read all of the comments of. Its the one @[email protected] and I are discussing. It also highlights the dynamic I'm interested in illustrating. Here is the link: https://lemmy.world/post/16224102?sort=Top
I recommend sorting by "Top" and reading through the first couple comment threads from top to bottom. Then scroll to the very bottom and read the comment threads in reverse order, basically most down voted. This should give you an idea for the type of dynamic I'm identifying, and the research I'm interested in conducting is how this dynamic shifted within our community. These days you would see an inversion of which narratives are being upvoted and which ones are being down-voted. So how did that come to be?
u are right that mods banend pepole for talking against the dem talk here. lemmy def tries to stifle voices. it's better now, but befor eelection, it was so blatent. Anyone who supported thrid party were attacked. but yoru tracking program still sounds icky.
I've actually done a version of this and a couple of other various ideas about it. The current WIP idea works totally differently to what you are talking about, I actually got as far as making a community for it, but then abandoned the effort because I couldn't figure out a way to deploy it that would be in any way productive.
I'm going to say it knowing ahead of time that roughly 100% of the people reading are going to think it's a terrible idea: It is an LLM-based moderator that watches the conversation and can pick out bad faith types on conduct in the conversation. I actually 100% agree with you about political conversation online being almost exclusively a big waste of time (including because of the way moderation happens and people trying to deliberately distort the narrative). This was just my idea to try to help it.
The thing that led me to never do anything with it was that I didn't feel like anyone would ever buy into it enough to even take part in a conversation where it was deployed (even assuming it worked passably well which is not proven). If you care about these issues also, though, would you like to try the experiment of having the whole conversation we're having with it observing the conversation and weighing in? I would actually like to, I'd be fine with continuing with the questions you were asking and continuing this whole debate about moderation and its impact on Lemmy, in that context. Let me know.
Yeah I think its got to work for people to buy into it. And frankly my earliest implementations were "inconsistent" at best.
My thought right now is that the tool needs to do a first pass to encode the "meta-structure", or perhaps.. scaffolding(?) of a conversation.. then proceed to encode the impressions/ leanings. I have tools that can do this in-part, but it needs to be.. "bigger".. whatever that means. So there is sentiment analysis, easy enough. There is key phrase extraction. And thats fine for a single comment.. but how do we encode the dynamic of a conversation? Well thats quite a bit more tricky.
still seems to me u guys are doing it for witchhunting. if someone doesn't like someone they can just ban them. you two going on and on about writing a program and using ai to catch peopel you don't like is icky. I'll be one of the people voting against this if it ever goes wide on lemmy. no thanks. u all need to touch grass, ur way too caught up in lemmy
At least for the tool I was talking about, it wasn't planning on banning anyone. I've been a moderator for a decently large collection of forums on Lemmy and I can't even remember the last time I banned someone, although it did happen a handful of times months and months ago. The tool was planned as purely something to give input to the participants about elements of the other person's point that they were getting carried away with their own stuff and not addressing.
Yeah, generally having it read the conversation (I think as JSON, maybe in markdown for the first pass, I can't remember, it's a little tricky to get the comments into a format where it'll reliably grasp the structure and who said what, but it's doable) and then do its output as JSON, and then have those JSON pieces given as input to further stages, seems like it works pretty well. It falls apart if you try to do too much at once. If I remember right, the passes I wound up doing were:
And I think that was pretty much it. It can't do all of that at once reliably, but it can do each piece pretty well and then pass the answers on to the next stage. Just what I've observed of political arguments on Lemmy, I think that would eliminate well over 50% of the bullshit though. There's way too many people who are more excited about debunking some kind of strawman-concept they've got in their head, than they are with even understanding what the other person's even saying. I feel like something like that would do a lot to counteract it.
The fly in the ointment is that people would have to consent to having their conversation judged by it, and I feel like there is probably quite a lot of overlap between the people who need it in order to have a productive interaction, and those who would never in a million years agree to have something like that involved in their interactions...
That's not at all what he said. He said, more or less, that Ozma had indicated that he was deliberately trying to control the narrative. Specifically, he said he was seeking out anti-Biden stories and posting them as a sort of semi-automated process, just as many as he could find, to bring "balance" or something along those lines to the narrative. He wasn't all that concerned with whether the stories were true -- just "which side" of the narrative they supported.
Like I said, I actually don't agree with that being a good reason for banning him, although I do agree he should have been banned. To be honest I think the design of a lot of Lemmy's systems, moderation included, is just fundamentally broken. If someone wants to come in and manipulate the narrative (which again was what ozma specifically said he was trying to do), there's not any good way to prevent them, which is a problem.
Also like I said I think if you study this objectively you will see that mod abuse works the opposite of the way you're thinking that it does. I think the vast majority of mods that are trying to manipulate the narrative are ones most people haven't heard of, that are quietly finding reasons to ban anyone who argues too loudly with return2ozma or whatever. But I'm happy to see the data. Personally, after having looked at the way the systems fit together and how people try to abuse them on both sides of the user/moderator divide, and done a certain amount of your same type of numerical analysis, I think the right thing to do is more or less to just throw a lot of the core concepts away (or, maybe better, layer some better core concepts on top of them and bring moderation back to its role as just keeping the porn / spam away and try to depend on higher-level constructs to keep debates on track.)
IDK if you really need to do this. You're welcome to, but I feel like instead of spending any significant time trying to prove any particular way that the existing systems are broken, just accepting that they (in particular the "mods are gods" model) are broken, and trying to make something better, might be a better way.
I thought today partly because of this conversation about making a politics community which was something along the lines of:
This community works differently to how most politics communities work. It has strict rules designed to facilitate productive discussion. You can be rude, to a point, but you can't participate in bad faith:
The idea is to make the discussion productive. Let's see how it works. Maybe this is a fool's errand but IDK how any set of moderation could be worse than lemmy.world.
Other misc rules:
In that world, you'd be able to ban return2ozma the first time he posted an article about how Biden did some horrifying thing that he objectively didn't do, and someone asked about it in the comments, and ozma said "IDK I'm just trying to bring balance" and posted 5 more articles. For me, I would vastly prefer that over the current moderation structure where it is sort of arbitrary rules and the comments are mostly a bad faith free-for-all where the mods' actions don't really do all that much beyond keeping obvious death threats and things away.
Can you sense the salt in my overall feelings lol
A big part of this is about power dynamics. Moderators are in a position of power, return2ozma has only the power of their rhetoric, their prominence, and the support of the community. The power dynamic is important. But we can deal with that when we're writing.
The fuck are you smoking?
https://lemmy.world/post/16224102
Top replies:
I can't rightly tell if you are legitimately this bad at remembering / perceiving what is happening on Lemmy, is why you're giving me this whole alternate history where with the power of his rhetoric, he was trying to bring light to the darkness, and the mods just wouldn't allow it so they could shape the narrative, but it's seeming less and less likely that this is innocent mistakenness on your part the longer I talk to you about it.
They aren't a mod. They don't have power in the relationship. Just straight up.
Mods have a degree of power and control in the relationship that Ozma doesn't have; and you are giving me an excellent example of how they can use that power to structure and control a narrative.
Mods have a power that a user/ participant will never have.
And the example you are providing is a perfect example of what I want to highlight. The mods used their power to create the impression of a specific narrative, and you bought it. Other voices, objecting to this, were actively being suppressed in this very thread. But the mods have the power in the relationship, so you see at the top the comments you are highlighting: this is exactly the kind of abuse of power I intend to highlight. And your perceptions of what you think was happening is the exact effect I'm interesting in documenting.
And the key here, is that, in-spite of their power, reality has a way of coming around. Ozma was "right" in the sense that when history was finally written, they're on the right side of it, and Jordan is on the wrong side. Jordan won the narrative battle, but lost the narrative war. Jordan's ability to control and manage that narrative is perfectly on display in those top comments, but now, the narrative has shifted towards the narrative that Ozma was trying to construct and deliver.
More broadly, everyone is always trying to construct these kinds of narratives. You are trying to construct a narrative. I'm trying to construct a narrative. Ozma is trying to construct a narrative. Jordan is trying to construct a narrative. But only has Jordan has the ability to drop a ban hammer. That's the critical difference. Thats the power dynamic that is present.
Edit, to put a finer point on it.
Say in this thread the community is 90:10 in agreement with the ban. Lets say today that people would be 40:60 in favor of a ban. That's would be a 50 point swing in Ozma's favor.
Everyone knows I always obey what the mods want to shape, as the narrative. Especially Jordan.
If you accept a whole bunch of reframings of things into other things, then yes, this makes perfect sense. For example, you might say that because ozma can't say his viewpoint 15 times a day, but only as many times a day as other people who are posting a variety of viewpoints including criticism of the Democrats, that means his viewpoint was suppressed, on purpose because Jordan bans any constructive criticism of the Democrats, and so on.
I can't really add anything to what I've said already. You're welcome to have the interpretation you like of what happened. It sounds like you're pretty attached to your current one.
Okay, but you can at least agree that mods have a form of power that user/participants dont?
Sorry, did something I said sound like "I'd like to have an extended debate about this with you?" I think I've laid out pretty clearly how I feel about it and why at this point.
Lol. We get to the rub of the matter and you want to take your ball and go home.
I'm not stopping you from laying out your thing, you can still say it. I feel like it'll probably just be a reiteration of what you already said, which is why I don't really want to go back and forth about it, I got your point already and I felt like I said my thing in turn. But sure, go ahead.
Mods have a form of power that users/ participants in communities dont.
That's it. That's the thing in its entirety.
happened plenty and you guys still witchhunt people who didn't seem to worship everything dem lol luckilly lemmy is so dencentralize that they don't have to be silenced no matte rhow much u wish they were
Find a particular modlog entry from last year. See how long it takes.
Well, I wasn't the one who said it was easy (and IDK that digging through the modlog is the easiest way even for someone who is sure that it happened to find out when it did), but sure. Here are all the posts from Dec 2023 and Jan 2024 that were removed that had "poll" in the title:
I was assured there would be some that showed Biden behind in the polls, that the mods were trying to cover up...
It's a silly thing to get hung up on, but it helps to demonstrate that the person I'm talking with is talking about some situation that didn't happen in reality.
Guess lemmy isn't a dog-slow pain in the ass for you. How nice.
No, I just know scripting
Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours...
Oh dear, he's going down the list of fallacies, after calling us disingenuous, when I clearly attacked unhinged posts.
You attacked me on some totally unrelated topic, instead of addressing anything I said about this topic.
If you disagreed with me about whether or not it's totally cool and normal for Lemmy to send people's admin passwords back to the mothership, you could weigh in over on that topic back when we were talking about that (and I'm pretty sure you did). It's all good, the issue is fixed now whether or not it was an honest mistake in the code, and we all had our say on it.
Now all of a sudden we're talking about some totally different issue, and whether or not anyone in power on Lemmy was "suppressing" or "banning" criticism of the Democrats during the run-up to the election (they were not) is left on the table, forgotten.
Here's more explanation if you need it, with some examples of how attacking past unrelated arguments or issues can be a good example of using ad hominem to deflect from anything about the issue currently under discussion:
https://practicalpie.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/
This is why I always regret it when I go to lemmy.world lol.
Can you explain how this fallacy applies? Also, dick move posting pictures of text without a transcript.
Because instead of addressing anything at all about what I said, they said more or less "but you're the person that said (totally unrelated thing) which I don't agree with therefore you're unhinged."