Calling people “incapable of original thought” is respectful? Come on, you’re not even trying to be coherent. I struggle to imagine a scenario in which you could actually generate an interesting discussion like you claim, and you’re actively making this platform worse for everyone you interact with. Blocked.
This is every school surveillance software
If we had done this earlier, this wouldn’t be a concern :/
Fuck around and find out
Blocked, go back to Reddit
The influencers are tools of the state. They can’t really go against the narrative or the CCP will literally show up at their door
“It’s impossible. Let me list 4 exceptions though”
Can’t wait for them to domain-seize Facebook and Xitter
WOW WHO COULD HAVE GUESSED
I would expect “faster” to be a way
I feel like the real answer is and has been for a long time some sort of distributed moderation system. Any individual user can take moderation actions. These actions produce visible effects for themself, and to anyone who subscribes to their actions. Create bot users who auto-detect certain types of behavior (horrible stuff like cp or gore) and take actions against it. Auto-subscribe users to the moderation actions of the global bots and community leaders (mods/admins) and allow them to unsubscribe.
We’d probably still need some moderation actions to be absolute and global, though, like banning illegal content.
That’s how all distros work. They exist so that you don’t have to make changes yourself.
Some sort of “report as bot” --> required captcha pipeline would be useful
I was thinking about this recently. Why do people still use social media that has ads or that allows self-promotion? It’s social media, not corporate media. Post stuff because you want to, not because you want to generate a profit.
Disliking a country is different from disliking a people.
The anarchist movement has a massive messaging issue / needs to decide what it actually is. I think this problem is itself caused by the movement being made of anarchists, who do not as easily fall into a decision-making structure.
Ad hominem is when you attack the entity making a claim using something that’s not relevant to the claim itself. Pointing out that someone (general someone, not you) making a claim doesn’t have the right credentials to likely know enough about the subject, or doesn’t live in the area they’re talking about, or is an LLM, aren’t ad hominem, because those observations are relevant to the strength of their argument.
I think the fallacy you’re looking for could best be described as an appeal to authority fallacy? But honestly I’m not entirely sure either. Anyways I think we covered everything… thanks for the debate :)
Ah, now I feel bad for getting a bit snippy there. You were polite and earnest as well. Thanks for the convo 🫡
How to upvote post on lemmy tha ks