Just go out and vote, and Trump will go away.

I already said I don’t take issue with any one decision, I care about the macro social implications.

You’re free to provide examples, but like I said it’s not the specific moderation choices that are the problem, it’s using public sentiment as a core part of that determination.

Right, because everyone knows a surgeon’s competency is 1-1 correlated with their notoriety

Any surgeon I do not know by-name is one that cannot be trusted, so the one and only surgeon I know will be performing my surgery regardless of if he’s piss-drunk and coked out.

Never-mind my surgeon introducing me to a new surgeon he recommends; nope, fuck off - he will perform my surgery or we will both die.

The problem is that somehow you wind up in long heated arguments with “centrists” which wander away from the topic and get personal

I’m not surprised I was identified by the bot, but it’s worth pointing out that ending up in heated arguments happens because people disagree. Those things are related. If someone is getting into lots of lengthy disagreements that are largely positive but devolve into the unwanted behavior, doesn’t that at least give legitimacy to the concern that dissenting opinions are being penalized simply because they attract a lot of impassioned disagreement? Even if both participants in that disagreement are penalized, that just means any disagreement that may already be present isn’t given opportunity to play out. Your community would just be lots of people politely agreeing not to disagree.

I have no problem with wanting to build a community around a particular set of acceptable behaviors -I don’t even take issue with trying to quantify that behavior and automating it. But we shouldn’t pretend as if doing so doesn’t have unintended polarizing consequences.

A community that allows for disagreement but limits argumentation isn’t neutral - it gives preferences to status-quo and consensus positions by limiting the types of dissent allowed. If users aren’t able to resolve conflicting perspectives through argumentation, then the consensus view ends up being left uncontested (at least not meaningfully). That isn’t a problem if the intent of the community is to enforce decorum so that contentious argumentation happens elsewhere, but if a majority of communities utilizes a similar moderation policy then of course it is going to result in siloing.

I might also point out that an argument that is drawn out over dozens of comments and ends in that ‘unwanted’ behavior you’re looking for isn’t all that visible to most users; if you’re someone who is trying to avoid ‘jerks’ then I would think the relative nested position/visibility of that activity should be important. I’m not sure how your bot weighs activity against that visibility, but I think even that doubt that brings into question the effectiveness of this as a strategy.

Again, not challenging the specific moderation choices the bot has made, just pointing out the problem of employing this type of moderation on a large scale. As it has been employed in this particular community is interesting.

I know this will ring hollow, considering I am (predictably) on the autoban list, but:

I don’t know how this isn’t a political-echochamber speedrun any%. People downvote posts and comments for a lot of reasons, and a big one (maybe the biggest one in a political community) is general disagreement/dislike, even simply extreme abstract mistrust. This is basically just crowdsourced vibes-based moderation.

Then again, I think communities are allowed to moderate/gatekeep their own spaces however the like. I see little difference between this practice and .ml or lemmygrad preemptively banning users based on comments made on other communities. In fact, I expect the same bot deployed on .ml or hexbear would end up banning the most impassioned centrist users from .world and kbin, and it would result in an accelerated silo-ing of the fediverse if it were applied at scale. Each community has a type of user they find the most disagreeable, and the more this automod is allowed to run the more each space will end up being defined by that perceived opposition.

Little doubt I would find the consensus-view unpalatable in a space like that, so no skin off my nose.

US liberals and US conservatives both share the core ideals of Liberalism, including the right to private property

They differ only in where they think individual liberty ends.

Skill issue.

Yup, I ended up frankensteining a nas from various craigslist parts (i actually found a low-power business-class server motherboard that has worked out well for the purpose). Had to get a SAS HBA card and a couple SFF-8087 cables to do the job right, and I grabbed an old gaming case from the 2010’s to hold it all, but it was relatively seamless. I had one of the drives go out already, but luckily I had it in a raid configuration with parity so it was just a matter of swapping out the drives and rebuilding.

It’s been fun and rewarding, for sure! I’m glad I didn’t sell them like these other dweebs told me to lol

Fuck ALL social media, but especially fuck linkedin

if you continue to try { thisBullshit(); } you are going to catch (theseHands)

This is the most beautiful thing I’ve read all year

Right on.

I think lemmy is filled with a lot of people who (maybe) understand this in fewer words. Case-in-point: there are plenty here who are acknowledging this dynamic played out through landlords and ownership of private property.

Making the leap from understanding that type of authority to the authority utilized by AES countries takes some time for some. Similar in the way reactionaries interpret Foucault’s description of institutionalized power as inherently negative, power exercised by the state isn’t inherently bad, either, especially when the alternative is allowing capitalists to claim it for themselves.

Pointing out that suppressive authority exists even in the liberal democracies that nominally espouse ‘freedom’ is a good first step but far from the last. The Tienanmen square thing is… well it definitely gets in the way of that conversation. It’s a bit of a socialist’s Godwin’s Law.

This is a really weird interpretation of authoritarianism… authoritarian regimes often enforce their authority through ‘due’ process.

I think the point op is making is that liberal democracies defer authority to capital and enforces it on their behalf. There’s a temptation to consider liberalism to be less authoritarian because of this deferral but it’s mostly just a slight-of-hand

I’m biased but I think everyone should do this. You can basically find the hardware you’d need out of a dumpster, and then you can slowly build your library from there.

If you find torrenting to be distasteful, you can get a cheap USB DVD reader and rip dvds instead.

It’s still technically considered infringement, but at least it’s completely private.

I honestly don’t know why you wouldn’t just do jellyfin, unless you’re limited by your hardware and kodi somehow has less overhead?

They’re both free I guess. You can try them on and see how well they serve tour use case

Weird, I’m getting the same argument from those who think liberals are too lazy to push their candidate away from indefensible foreign policy

I’m so curious about those two downvotes

This is… this is really antisemitic… right? And Islamophobic…?

This is definitely some nazi shit