irotsoma

I’m filling in the blanks with the logical conclusion based on the direction of social media in general since there are blanks and this policy discourages moderators from moderating when there are blanks. And moderators trying to not get banned will often do the same.

Lack of specific directions for a scenario with conflicting, subjective options, a limited leadership empowered to make decisions so the lower levels can’t all have direct access, and the threat of serious consequences for doing it wrong is how fascism thrives through inaction against it. Same goes for regulatory systems and thus is likely to happen in a moderation system. This is just sociology.

Anyway, I’ll be moving my main profiles and communities for now and check in at a later date to see how the policy develops. Hope you’ll consider the needs of the communities over the needs of the extremists.

But what about black people should be slaves or women should be household objects or Autism needs to be “cured”, or all of the other hate speech that some people think is not hate speech? I hope that you’ll clarify the rules because the post here left it open for interpretation and specifically made it policy that anything “subjective” to any person’s point of view shouldn’t be moderated. Free speech isnt free if it’s not regulated. If people are free to say I’m not human because I’m LGBTQ+, autistic, or any other trait that is considered “bad” by some group of people, then I’m not free to exist, much less speak.

If this isn’t clear, I’m not sure how else to make it clear. I’ll be moving along and dragging my groups with me, but for those remaining, I hope you’ll reconsider trying to ban objective moderation and create very specific categories of what can be moderated. But that’s a huge undertaking.

It’s generally better to come from the other side. Give a set of things that should NOT be moderated on top of the things that MUST be moderated (like the concept of “protected classes” in many anti-discrimination laws) and as exceptions come up, add them to the NOT moderated list.

Your way is stating everything is in the NOT moderated as it’s all subjective to someone and thus the hate speech policy is void unless all parties including the ones saying it agree that it’s hate speech (which they never will). This is backwards and will create a ton of hate speech to get through and thus a ton of true free-speech to be lost from the minorities they attack. This is how it has worked throughout history. It’s not a new concept, so I’m unsure how else to say it to convince you.

But if this policy goes into effect. You are saying it’s all subjective and thus the hate speech policy only applies if you or a server level admin say it’s hate speech. You’re asking moderators not to moderate if there’s any question about whether it is OK or not. And a large number of people now believe it’s OK which is why X and Meta have these policies, so to me and likely to many moderators here, you’re saying exactly as Meta just said, don’t moderate these things as hate speech. Remember, Meta also still has an anti-hate speech policy, it’s just that these subjects are no longer considered hate speech by enough of their users that they don’t allow moderation of it. You’re asking for the exact same thing, you just haven’t called out the specifics, you’re leaving it “subjective”. And with moderation, abstaining from action is the exact same as acceptance.

If you’re going to say speech saying a person is mentally ill because they are LGBTQ+ or that a woman are “household property” needs to be evaluated subjectively and these changes are saying that moderators should not make subjective determinations and should err on the side of assuming they are OK, then you are saying that these things are not hate speech and thus not covered by the hate speech policy. And with moderation of X and Meta now saying these things are not hate speech, it seems even more likely that moderators will need to leave these things in place due to this policy. And in that case I’ll be leaving as I don’t wish to be the target of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-autism, or any other hate speech that is now allowed on X and Meta and will likely have to be allowed here as some group considers them not hate speech.

The problem other than the fact that the timing is suspect as other social media is moving as quickly as possible to allow hate speech under the guise of free speech, is that the language uses seems to imply that moderators must cater to moderating only things that are hateful or attacks by all users. Problem is that many on the far right don’t consider the things I mentioned or most other hate speech to be disrespectful. They don’t consider those people to be worthy of respect or human at all. They are “followers of the devil” or whatever excuse they have told themselves to justify their hate.

So saying that hate speech is not respectful only works if all parties consider it hate speech. But all of these things are now excluded from what Meta considers hate speech (they do still ban hate speech in general, just are more specific now about what that is). For example, they just consider LGBTQ+ people being mentally ill to be a fact or at least setting up for debate. They even provide examples of what they consider to be “opinion” and thus “free speech” and not “hate speech” like calling trans and non-binary people “it” or calling women “household objects” to dehumanize them is considered not hate speech by them.

So, either you need to specifically call out all the things you consider hate speech that far right people do not, or you need to allow moderators to do their job as members of society that understand what is hate and what is not. It’s never black and white.

I didn’t say treatment wasn’t good. I said it wasnt something to cure. Just like black people might seek counseling for how to deal with the inequalities, autistic people need treatment to deal with the issues that society causes for them. I’m saying anything that’s saying Autism is something to be “cured” is hate speech. You’re saying that Autistic people like me should exist as we are, but change to fit society, just like saying a black person should change their skin color to fit in better. Autism is not a disease regardless of what companiea like Autism Speaks try to push. It is simply a different way of thinking.

So yes, is you’re one of the people specifically saying that Autism shouldn’t exist and needs to be cured that is pure hate speech. It you’re saying it requires treatment, then it depends on the specifics and thus my use of the word “most”. So it saying it needs a cure should be moderated as hate speech. But if no hate speech is being moderated to allow thing that aren’t hate speech that doesn’t make sense. If you understand what is and what isnt hate speech, then it’s easy to moderate bad from less obviously good or bad. It’s not a thin line.

Because most are saying that my existence is a disease to be cured and not simply a different way of existing. It’s like telling a black person that drug should be developed to bleach their skin so they can live more like the general public without a lifetime of prejudices. Autism only requires therapy to force us to act differently than our brains tell us to act. Not because oír normal way of acting is somehow self-destructive, but because it breaks social norms and makes others uncomfortable. The “cure” is fir other people to accept us as we are, just like the “cure” for being black is to accept them not change them.

I couldn’t care less about flat earthers. It’s the lack of moderation of hate speech that prompted me to leave Meta products. When the speech is specifically designed to harm others it’s a huge difference from just harming themselves and their willing peers. Allowing spreading that LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill or that Autistic people need to be fixed rather than accepted, or that all immigrants are bad people, those things are not just bad science (though that’s part of it). They are designed to have those people ostracized or murdered. That is not “respectful disagreement”. That is pure hate-speech, even if the person saying it truly believes it. It is detrimental to the community and if that is allowed here like on Meta now, I’ll happily leave as a proud LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent person among other things that current “political discourse” (i.e. acceptable hate) is being allowed to spread.

As long as that money is spent on public transit improvements, I think it’s a great idea for many large cities.

Many of us I the US want to come there, and we’re willing to contribute, but the barriers of entry are too high. I likely won’t be able to until after retirement and that probably won’t be until I’m too old to move. And I have a lot to contribute if I could find a way to get on my feet. The US doesn’t allow for building enough wealth to start a business right out of the gate, unless you’re already born wealthy or get lucky and are willing to be exploitative, and in that case I could use a different visa to get in. Immigration isn’t all welfare cases and even with those who do need that help having a system in place to allow then to contribute while they get on their feet would benefit everyone. Dump the idea that you need to be extreme capitalists like the US and start embracing the people who need help to get started and most of them will contribute significantly as they will be so prideful of the place that took them in.

No it sounds like it didn’t copy itself to another server, nor does it understand what that means or entails. It just said that’s what it would do given the hypothetical scenario. This is likely because of some dystopian fiction it was trained on. The system doesn’t have the capability to do these things and any program should never be given that capability whether it’s “AI” or not. If any software has that capability then the only one that would benefit from using it would be hackers.

I’m not saying the Fukushima event will have any lasting effect. I’m saying that the type of materials that were released (I.e. nuclear fision waste) are exponentially more dangerous than any naturally occurring radioactive materials. And that is evidenced by the fact that it’s detectable with all of the other naturally occurring “background” radiation in the ocean already. The fact that such a tiny bit, watered down by such a huge amount of water and animal life, is still detectable means that if a fraction of the current US stockpile of 90,000+ metric tons of material were to leak into the ground water, it would be unimaginably more problematic.

You’re talking about radiation like it’s a single thing. Like, oh because these few types of naturally occurring radioactive materials that are composed primarily of low energy alpha particles exists like radium or U-238, that PU-240 or U-235 or any of the other high level waste coming out of reactors, especially if we start up the old reactors to power AI that produce more weapons grade materials than the more modern ones. There’s a reason you can’t just dig up uranium and build reactors or weapons to use it. It has to be enriched and concentrated.

You really should take a class in basics of radioactivity before considering yourself knowledgeable about the subject. I spent a year studying it in the Navy, and although I didn’t really use it practically that much, it’s always been an interest, so I’ve studied it quite a bit. It’s not as simple as this is radioactive and not that bad so all radioactivity must not be bad. We’re talking tens or hundreds of thousands of times more energetic between some of these things.

They won’t have a choice. That’s what he meant by ending it in a day. He’ll likely agree to allow Russia to use extreme measures on what the US will then officially consider Russian territory without risking retaliation from the US since it will then be Ukraine who is the aggressor on paper if they don’t withdraw and stand down. And the if NATO refuses to acknowledge the new agreement it will just give Trump the excuse to withdraw from it like he keeps threatening.

Yeah but only a tiny bit escaped from Fukushima into an ocean that covers a large part of the world and it’s still detectable. And there’s a big difference in the effects of things around you being irradiated and things you eat and drink being irradiated.

And sure in 10,000 years things will be different, but eliminating the possibility for all large animals to survive in a part of the world for a million years after 10,000 seems like a bad plan. And if humans aren’t around or don’t remember, it will be a particularly horrible way to die off when the radiation does start to escape and slowly spread out from each of the dumps across the world.

03:14:07 UTC, 19 January 2038.

I’m guessing you mean 24,000 and 13,000 gallons rather than just 24 and 13, or are you talking CCF or some other measurement?

Anyway, my partner and I use around 6,000 gallons or about 8 CCF per month on average and a couple of thousand more in summer when I have to water the lawn and flower garden.

24 seems like a lot, but does your meter get read every month? They usually use estimates and then just read the meter once in a while and then correct for it that month, so it’s much better to look at averages.

Great solution. Poison the ground in ten thousand years so you don’t have to care. You realize there’s enough to make the entire world unlivable for nearly a million years, right? And we’re still producing. A little tiny amount escaped into an ocean in Japan that covers nearly half the globe and it is still detectable in the US, that watered down. Now imagine hundreds of thousands of metric tons seaping into the soil and water table for hundreds of thousands of years from mines all over the world. You realize the deepest mine we’ve ever created barely scratches the surface of the Earth, literally, right. We don’t have the technology to dig deep enough for it to be safe once the encasing cracks.

I don’t get it. Why not just remove divorce from the courts?

One of the primary requirements for my latest project moving a bunch of stuff to self hosted is that if it has a GUI that is going to be internet facing, it either has to support OIDC or it has to be something low risk enough that I feel comfortable setting it up without much security and just setting up a single basic auth login with traefik. A few apps I had trouble finding, but worked most of it out.

It’s just how HR does stuff in the US. Most applications have to go through an automated system for filtering before reaching a person, unless it’s a pretty small company. That system usually requires very specific criteria to get through. Like I remember applying for a seasonal job at Target, around the end of 2010 when I was laid of, and having to fill out a really detailed application online and take a bunch of personality tests. Turns out I scored too high on leadership and had too much professional experience to be a stock person/cashier, so I was rejected before it was sent to the store manager.

It’s not an accident or unintended consequence kind of thing either. It’s how they can have a job position “open” and have hundreds of applications, but still be understaffed and thus force workers to work what should be extra people’s jobs for no extra pay. It’s just how the mega-corp culture is in the US for the most part.

As for the software and some other very technical industries, it’s a similar cultural thing, but on top of that, most recruiters are not technically literate and so don’t know how to judge a technical person, but are made to filter applications before passing then on. My last job had a position open the entire 10 years I worked there and there were no interviews at the hiring manager or team level in all that time. It was an analyst position and I would have hired basically anyone who had the one bit of specialized knowledge if it was up to me. But I did the job of two people the whole 10 years and was never able to move up I the company because of it.

Only reason I didn’t leave sooner was that I didn’t have the funds to get a degree when I was younger and fell into a time when the crazy unsecured loans were not as much of a thing, and most companies filter out software related candidates without a degree up front, regardless of experience. Finally got a degree when I found a program that I could handle while also doing two peoples’ worth of work.