• 1 Post
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle







  • I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.

    Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote… Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that’s who is obviously correct…? Or are you more simple than even that and think, “this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!”

    When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?

    I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we’ve done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn’t hard to do…

    During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.

    Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.

    The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.

    Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

    Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.

    The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the “War on Drugs” policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality…

    Good old “Drug War Joe”.

    one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.

    Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.



  • Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.

    Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don’t say anything at all.

    It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren’t considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.

    It’s important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.

    Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of “Politics” we’ll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics… etc.


  • I’ve been pondering the concept of Reddit “karma,” and I believe it’s time for a serious discussion about its true nature and the impact it has on our communities. I’ve written multiple posts about this previously here on kbin (https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/95140/Dearest-developers-Stop-reinventing-the-wheel) with very mixed results in the engagement. Though I am still working on refining the argument.

    While the idea behind karma is to provide users with a reputation score or social credit, I’ve noticed that it doesn’t necessarily align with those intentions. Instead, it often serves as a reinforcement for users to stay within their comfort zones and echo chambers, stifling diverse perspectives and constructive dialogue.

    One of the main issues I’ve observed is the tendency for downvoting to occur when a user expresses an opinion that goes against the prevailing sentiment within a particular community. Even if the opinion is well-thought-out, respectful, and contributes to meaningful conversations, it becomes a target for downvotes. This behavior discourages users from engaging or expressing differing viewpoints.

    It’s disheartening to witness how users can manipulate the system out of spite. Some individuals go as far as visiting other users’ profiles and downvoting their past posts to deliberately lower their karma score. This kind of behavior further emphasizes how the current karma system is more of a reflection of how often a user participates in echo chambers that align with their views, rather than an accurate measure of their quality engagement or contribution to the community.

    With that in mind, I propose that we reconsider the name of the point system to better reflect its actual usage. Here are a few alternative names that encapsulate the behavior we often see:

    • Echo Chamber Score: Highlighting the tendency to reward users who stick to echo chambers and discourage exploration of different perspectives.

    • Bias Points: The system measures a user’s inclination to conform to specific biases or ideological groups.

    • Conformity Score: The score reflects a user’s adherence to the prevailing opinions within specific communities, rather than their engagement.

    I believe a change in the name would serve as a wake-up call for the community, highlighting the importance of open-mindedness and respectful discourse. It would encourage users to think beyond their echo chambers and engage in meaningful conversations, even if they hold different opinions.

    I’ve previously discussed how it would be more beneficial to leave the rep system in place, but keep the scores hidden to everyone besides the user of that profile. Another thing to think about is the way Steam has a rep system regarding VAC Bans. Instead of banning a profile completely, just some big red text on their profile noting which game or community there were banned from and how often.

    I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this matter. What are your suggestions for improving the system to foster more open and constructive dialogue?



  • This also makes me happy. While I generally wish that more people would pursue the trades and avoid college completely, this is a step in the right direction. Good luck to you!

    Lefties constantly talk about being inclusive and fair. Yet they can’t see through their own BS.

    Social equity programs DO NOT promote equality. By requiring colleges and universities to use colorblind criteria in admissions, it ensures that all applicants are evaluated based on their merits and qualifications, rather than their race or ethnicity. So this ruling is a big win!

    This approach aligns with the principle of equal protection under the law, as enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Removing race as a consideration allows for a more objective and fair evaluation of applicants’ qualifications. Focusing on an applicant’s individual qualities and achievements enhances diversity in a more comprehensive and meaningful way.

    Considering race perpetuates a form of discrimination in itself.

    We must eliminate systemic barriers and leveling the playing field for ALL PEOPLE.





  • what buttons does the user see?

    Voting options could still exist, the point is that the metrics are hidden (when it’s something as simple as Up or Down). You wouldn’t see how many people agree or disagree with a post or the content the’ve decided to post. Discouraging the countless accounts who repost the same memes to the same communities multiples times per week.

    I’m mostly going to just hit any or all of them when I like the content. And I’ll click none of them when I dislike content

    Ideally, there would be multiple options (engaging, comprehensive, shitpost, etc) but a user would only be allowed to select one, and wouldn’t be able to submit it without reaching a specific character limit explaining their position. Albeit, some would just fill the character limit with emojis, no doubt. In turn, the hope is that the community would call out such behaviors because, admittedly…

    I don’t think the internet can be objective enough to make these reliably more useful than an upvote

    …I might be naive and have more faith in people…

    Should this thread’s quality be treated differently based on my format?

    The simplest answer is that it would be unlikely that a single user would be able to heavily influence that metric. More heavily weighing the amount of the engaged users.

    but I don’t think we should aspire to black box algorithms

    I most assuredly agree. “Security through obscurity” has never been the correct answer. That’s why we have open discussions, so more than just a few people can find the vulnerabilities. ;)

    I’m trusting based on your writing that you’re open to collective constructive criticism.

    That’s exactly why I’m here. I’ve never enjoyed most social media platforms, so when I heard people were migrating, I had to check it out. Come to find out, all these alternate, open platforms are just recreating the same disaster. Taking the, in my opinion, worst aspects of social platforms and trying to justify their continued usage…

    Humans have spent a heck of a lot of time, money and effort trying to figure about it, and we still seem to get it wrong a lot haha.

    Name one time when money has created something better than that which was created by a heartfelt, open source, community (don’t actually LOL).

    Again, I appreciate your input. It’s why I’m here, to talk to people who actually care and want something better. How can we say we’re moving forward and progressing when we’re actually just revolving?


  • We all have the power to curate our own online spaces by using common features like blocking and reporting. Moderation on smaller platforms would certainly be rough though, depending on the amount of users or abusers said platforms happens to attract.

    what I need is an easier way to tell the two groups apart

    People tend to surround themselves with others who are like minded… Shielding themselves from opposition… This creation of echo chambers has very negative effects… Confirmation bias, limiting your understanding, stagnation of your ideas, and an increasing polarization surround the issues at hand. Seeking validation and interaction from people who disagree with our views promotes intellectual growth, critical thinking, and empathy.

    It doesn’t matter how good or bad someone’s ideas are if you only have people telling you your ideas are great…

    It is crucial to recognize that merely receiving praise and agreement from others, regardless of the quality of our ideas, does not lead to genuine progress or personal development. Acceptance of our views by others should not be expected if we are unwilling to embrace alternative viewpoints ourselves. As we as a society empathize more with marginalized communities, it becomes even more vital to create spaces that encourage open dialogue, understanding, and respect for diverse opinions.

    Indeed, free speech has it’s limitations. But, I implore you to engage with these people you try to shield yourself from… Destroy their arguments with logic. Downvoting them or having them banned does nothing to encourage intellectual growth from either side of the argument.

    More often then not, there’s nothing stopping them from coming back with a new account…


  • https://kbin.social/u/CoderKat
    https://kbin.social/u/@lemann@lemmy.one

    The other reassuring-type approach I’ve seen is replies challenging the individual’s negative comment getting showered in upvotes

    I proposed that the metrics (upvote/downvote) are hidden, not gone. Users would still have the ability to vote, the point is to avoid new users who are joining the discussion and instantly forming their opinions before actually engaging with the content. Be it full of love or full of hate, it’s crucial to any community to uphold the principles of free speech.

    Otherwise, you delve into becoming an echo chamber, regardless of if the ideas within that chamber are good or bad…

    Something something, I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me… etc. - Somebody.

    While downvoting can certainly provide a sense of validation and solidarity, it’s important to remember that it is just one aspect of a larger ecosystem. Curating your own feed empowers individuals to shape their online experiences by blocking or reporting accounts that promote harmful or offensive content. While hate speech can be undesirable or harmful, it is indeed protected under the umbrella of free speech.

    You are right that challenging the distasteful opinion happens often. However, seeking validation on the challenge is where we disagree. Encouraging critical thinking and engaging in respectful and thoughtful discussions are essential practices in fostering a healthier online discourse. Challenging negative comments with well-articulated counterarguments and promoting constructive dialogue is a much more powerful way to combat bigotry and promote understanding, especially when compared to an “us vs them” mindset.

    By challenging these comments and promoting critical thinking, we can collectively create an environment that values empathy, inclusivity, and the exchange of diverse perspectives.

    Thank you both for sharing your thoughts.