Removing for editorializing the title, and locked due to multiple violations of Lemmy’s ToS.

The problem in NC might be atypical, though. State office pays $13,951 per year, and I’m not sure if that’s comparable to other states but it damn sure isn’t enough to entice anyone who isn’t already independently wealthy (and who can take 6 months off per year and not lose their job).

To be sure, the NC Democratic Party is utter dogshit at recruiting new talent, but they’re also fighting a seriously uphill battle in trying to find people who are willing to make literally below poverty level just to serve.

Wait, was he the good guy with a gun or the bad guy with a gun?

Same in NC.

Well put. I’ll also add that in left-leaning communities there’s almost always more attention being paid to dark money flowing into our elections from groups like AIPAC than there is being paid to dark money flowing into our elections via third parties. Dark money is certainly a corrupting influence if it gets injected directly into the campaign process for one of the two major parties, but it’s equally troublesome that third parties are frequently (if not always) funded from the ground up by an opposing party specifically for the purpose of ratfucking an election. Whether or not third parties are in on the game or simply willingly ignorant stooges, their effect is always the same. And the fact that they’re essentially invisible except during presidential election cycles provides a strong bit of evidence for the latter.

When analysts first noticed Spamouflage five years ago, the network tended to post generically pro-China, anti-American content. In recent years, the tone sharpened as Spamouflage expanded and began focusing on divisive political topics like gun control, crime, race relations and support for Israel during its war in Gaza. The network also began creating large numbers of fake accounts designed to mimic American users.

Spamouflage accounts don’t post much original content, instead using platforms like X or TikTok to recycle and repost content from far-right and far-left users. Some of the accounts seemed designed to appeal to Republicans, while others cater to Democrats.

I argued against the bot for a week. I hated the damn thing, and I pointed to the negative feedback as evidence in my discussions. I also held off on making sweeping assessments or making any rushed decisions because a vote manipulation ring was simultaneously uncovered, and we had no idea how deep the manipulation went. Could the feedback have been manipulated? No idea! Should we go by votes only? No idea!

I took the time to let the team read the feedback and discuss the costs and benefits, and in the end the votes were only part of the picture. Another part is the visceral commitment of a vocal minority to overwhelming the community with commentary (and reports) to such an extent that the people who are calm and supportive get drowned out and downvoted, along with anyone who happens to agree with them. Not entirely sure those folks have committed as much energy to downvoting every critical comment as was the case on the other side though.

The team took 12 days to work through disagreements (there were many) so we could come to a consensus position, and lo and behold, the bot is gone. The fact that the people who want the bot gone feel like they’re being dismissed is flabbergasting to me. It’s gone. Mission accomplished!

Yes it does.

Yeah, we were told they disrupted a downvote ring. I have no fucking idea where those accounts voted, except that we took vote totals with a grain of salt because we were in the dark. I’m frankly used to being bombarded with downvotes every time i comment in this community (edit: One person went out of their way to downvote each of my last 7 comments, for example.). So in my eyes, votes were (and continue to be) compromised, and we were informed about the ring while we were deliberating bot feedback. I tried to connect the dots with incomplete information because I’m not an admin. What else are you looking for here?

Yes, cutting a snippet out of a sentence with broader context is a classic form of bad faith argumentation:

if we’re not allowed to point to votes as a source of valid information, then sorting by “top” is equally invalid.

The “if” conditional is pretty fundamental in that sentence. To cut it out and then paraphrase it to mean something it doesn’t is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

No, in this community. We were told that the admins found a vote manipulation ring in our threads. I don’t have admin level access, so I have no idea where they voted for what.

or that votes on upvoted comments ought to be ignored because of vote manipulation

No one on the mod team said that. If you’re going to appeal that we be honest in our engagement, the least you can do is be honest in yours.

1. Thank you. I don’t have that kind of audit authority and all we were told is that vote manipulation was occurring. We’d love to have you join the team if you’d like to help.

2. We took all of the feedback seriously because the bot is gone. I’m really not sure why people keep pretending like we haven’t already acted on it.

3. That you’d call this “spreading FUD” or"bad faith" is, frankly, insulting. I can only act on the information I have. In the end, I said that manipulation made assessing the situation difficult, but we still followed through accordingly. We are volunteering our time, and you lying about our intentions isn’t helping either.

I only have a few hours per day to devote to this. If you think you can do better, then step up.

Like I explained to you yesterday, none of this feedback has been ignored. We took 12 days to review it, and we acted accordingly.

Maybe. Nothing has been developed yet, so everything is very much up in the air.

Yes, it is personal. The fact that one mod almost resigned over this means that whether or not people intended for it to be, the criticism was in some cases very personal. And we have evidence that some (never said “all”) voting was manipulated, which makes our job more difficult because there’s no way to tell how many of those comments were upvoted because many people agreed with them, versus a few people agreeing with them so intensely that they were willing to break the rules to prove their point. At the end of the day, people gave feedback, we reviewed it, and the bot is gone. We didn’t ask for it to be created, had no role in coding it, didn’t ask for it to be rolled out, didn’t turn it on, couldn’t change it, couldn’t turn it off, and gave the admins time to try their experiment while we determined whether or not it made sense for the community. It wasn’t our bot.

I didn’t claim there was no consensus, or that “all” the downvotes were sockpuppets. We have evidence that some of them were, which makes distilling the overall sentiment pretty difficult.

You’re taking the wrong lesson from these findings.

I’m telling you that the way you’re reading the comments has no bearing on what was actually happening behind the scenes.

We have been discussing the content of that feedback for about a week now, both with the broader moderator/admin community and within this team, and since most of us aren’t online at the same time (we have jobs) it takes a few days for the whole team to see and respond to opinions. Given that many of us disagreed on the best path forward, we had to come to a workable consensus. We have now acted on that feedback in accordance with the wishes of the community, so your claim that we had no intention to do so is significantly off the mark.