I was playing Nine Sols for quite a little while yesterday, and when I switched away for something I discovered that NixOS had decided to rebuild the kernel when I did an update and I hadn’t noticed. It was sitting there with the load at 18, all the cores pegged in the red, just happily playing the game for me as normal the whole time.
Nine Sols is not some kind of graphical powerhouse but still I was pretty impressed.
Oh, I thought you meant no email address required to make an account.
Just having to register in order to read the feed is probably just for server load reasons, if I had to guess.
That’s not how it works though.
I actually agree that registration is silly. It’s trivial to create fake email addresses; all it does is present obstacles and slight privacy implications for legitimate users, while forming an incredibly mild speedbump for malicious users. But, it’s probably not going away, every little tool in the toolbox that can be deployed by overworked volunteer admins against the unending tide of malicious users trying to make their lives more difficult is probably going to get deployed if it is easy to do.
Hey did anyone say loops yet?
Yeah. Probably my least favorite brand of it is when someone wanders into the comments to say, “I heard Kamala Harris wandered over to Gaza personally and shot some Palestinians just for fun, and then stopped by Tel Aviv to engage in some light foreplay with Netanyahu before getting back on a plane home stopping only to personally cause capitalism and so that’s why I don’t think I’m going to vote for her, I just don’t feel comfortable personally” and then reacts with “Whoa whoa whoa that’s only what I heard, I don’t really know, I don’t know why you are getting upset with me, I’m not even sure it’s true to be honest, I don’t really pay close attention to politics” when I get irritated at them about their type of engagement.
Yeah. There are genuine types of sophisticated trolling which involve pretending to be overtly polite while refusing to engage in any respect with the substance of what the other person’s saying, using politeness as a shield to sneak bullshit and bad-faith engagement into the discourse while making the other person look unreasonable if they start getting irritated about it.
In about 100% of cases where I’ve seen someone accused of “sealioning,” though, it is just that they are trying to engage with the conversation and ask for sources, if you have a certain way of approaching disagreement, that’s kryptonite to your argument and so the only response is to start whining about sealioning.
Yeah. I strongly dislike this whole classification that politely asking someone to back up what they said, or asking basic questions about it, is proof that you’re a terrible person and grounds for immediately quitting the conversation.
It also strikes me as relevant that the same people who say it is a sin, also tend to have no problem with overtly toxic behavior like slinging extreme abuse at anyone who disagrees with them or otherwise being an asshole.
No idea about tools although I hope you find something.
Two related suggestions that will change your life:
But then where will I deploy my AI moderator?
Hm.
Here are my thoughts:
I don’t really care about picking the better debater. That actually seems kind of antithetical: In a perfect world, the truth should win, and it doesn’t really matter if someone’s more “skillful” or forceful or just willing to type and berate more. Actually one of the things that bothers me about the propaganda on Lemmy is that it is often (not always) pretty skillful at changing minds, independent of the validity of the content.
I do like the idea of formalizing it a little bit. Having a limited number of “rounds” is an interesting idea. Right now, one of the issues I see that I’m trying to deal with with this thing is the strategy of kind of blathering endlessly or constantly changing the subject, not really being responsive but talking without end. The current iteration of the bot will call you out on it when that happens, but it might be kind of better if it’s your chance and once it’s done it is done. Kind of like court: If the opponent raises a point, and you just ignore it, than by default they “win” that point and you don’t even have a chance to go back and correct it.
I don’t even necessarily like the idea of picking a “winner.” To me, that’s up to each reader, and often the truth is kind of in the middle or they are both valid arguments. It’s more of kind of a pass/fail on both sides: Are you being reasonable? There are a lot of strategies that look really reasonable, or at worst just like aggressively asserting your side, but if you’re good at using them you can literally make almost anything sound plausible. So, if neither side is doing that, then it’s fine! They just had a conversation, responded reasonably to each other’s points, everything moved forward. I am more on the side of “what truth did we figure out” as opposed to needing to assign a winner and a loser mechanically to each debate.
Yeah, modern day political TV debate is nonsense. Actually, even this format of debate in the video you sent, I don’t completely like. The woman is clearly full of shit. They’re setting up this format structure, this respect, this kind of “objective” format, and then they are welcoming someone to take an honored position within it that doesn’t deserve the respect. I didn’t watch much beyond the beginning, but I can almost guarantee that she is lying and rationalizing, and her underlying position is “red man good blue man bad.” I don’t really know how you can expose that in a taking turns long form “debate” format, that’s just my reaction seeing her. I feel like having something like Jon Stewart interviewing her and challenging her, still being fair and letting her talk but not letting her get away with bullshit, would be better than implicitly pretending that she is upholding the social contract when she is not.
Maybe I am wrong, that’s just my snap judgement seeing the first little bit. Actually, setting up a framework where being unfriendly to that kind of dishonesty is allowed and sanctioned, but being dishonest or shifty in your debating is “not allowed” in the same way that overt incivility is “not allowed” currently on Lemmy, is part of my goal here.
Those are my thoughts about it, in no real coherent order, it just took me a little time to watch a piece of the video and get back to you.
Well, but you do though. Making comments and getting the respect and agreement of the people in the community is how you get influence.
I really don’t like this Lemmy thing where certain people are empowered by the software to control the communications of other people (beyond just removing spam or abuse or something). I feel like you don’t need that. I really don’t feel like you or me or anybody being put in a position where they can “influence” someone else’s communications unilaterally is really necessary to a good community. Often it is counterproductive. Maybe that’s the issue, you just activated one of my pet peeves in a way that has nothing to do with what you want to do.
Can you tell me more about what you want to do, how you would want to apply Oxford scoring and such? Maybe that could be a whole separate community / idea, I was envisioning this one as being a lot more basic, just can people talk with each other without blatantly mischaracterizing the other person’s points or ignoring questions or etc. But IDK, maybe I just don’t understand the basic concept even yet.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Yeah, I’d be happy to post it up along with some of the other little tools I use here, that’s a good idea.
Nothing is stopping you from making that tool without mod powers…
I generally don’t even touch the mod buttons except in exceptional circumstances; I don’t expect that this place would be any different. Maybe events will change my mind but I would hope that a lot of this stuff can get worked out with talking and culture, as opposed to by removing comments.
Ooh… that’s a good point. Any discussion which gets fed into the debate bot will get fed into OpenAI’s API, which means it’ll be used for training. (I trust their “do not use this data” checkbox not at all.) And I think you’re right that having that happen will be a deal-breaker for most people and just a totally different thing than the purpose of the community as stated.
Let me think on that a little more. I won’t do anything with the tool until I can look into self-hosting it or something. I think consider it as purely a human community until further discussion, then.
See my other comment. I wasn’t saying at all that Lemmy was a US-only thing, I was just trying to say that that the whole network is probably enough of a niche platform that it’s not worth the substantial effort that would be involved in trying to interfere too much with US users on non-US instances. Big instances in the US, they can fuck with, and so why not (and especially since the Take it Down act is structured to empower individuals to go after them without the government needing to spend resources on it.) Instances outside the US, never mind, we have bigger fish to fry.
Oh, I am sure most of Lemmy is outside the US. I was saying that, in general, Lemmy (and even Mastodon) is probably too small and difficult a problem for them to want to attack through any systematic method. I think, if anything, they’ll just surveil and punish individual US-based users as opposed to trying to shut down or block instances outside the US.
It’s one of the advantages of ActivityPub services. Bluesky will be easy for them to attack at the root and I fully expect them to do so, whereas for truly federated services I think the reaction will be “ah what the hell too much trouble, how much harm can they really do.”
No, they will just make server operators liable for obeying any conservative who has an issue with any content there and can make the right format of complaint.
I suspect that instances outside the US will simply be too small a factor to bother with. Small, scattered opposition that is subject to deliberate trolling and disruption at any scale anyone feels like deploying will simply not be worth bothering with.
This is all assuming if a big internet-censorship operation starts (which it seems likely that it will). I think it will mainly focus on large based-in-the-US companies which host large services. Notably among them will be Bluesky. The only impact it will have on anything ActivityPub-based is that they will shut down or muzzle some big instances inside the US, and then, the point being made, they will probably move on, leaving instances outside the US to do whatever they want. That’s my prediction.
Oh, also, Palantir’s surveillance will incorporate people’s comments into their overall dossier on the person, regardless of where their instance is, which means that anyone who maintains a big presence on an ActivityPub network will be putting themselves at person risk of neo-deportation to somewhere they can never get free from. It will still be legal to do, though. Sure.
Un called for