Ah the accusation. The exclamation point of the enlightened.
Ah the accusation. The exclamation point of the enlightened.
Well that would be an example of automation that needs improving.
That’s what software developers do, right?
Yes yes. So virtuous and obedient.
But consider this. Take all your well-worn arguments for the vax and every time you see “vax”, replace that with “brainchip”.
You see how it works.
That’s lovely.
Ya I know.
Thing is, I’m an outlier. I post strange stuff. And the 99% is the opposite. So our ideas of what’s comfortable may differ.
Or maybe I’m just posting to the wrong subs
Our posts and comments are the treasure here.
A better analogy would be a bank. You deposit some money and then the bank says “this is my money”.
That would be fucked up. Right?
Is it just the subs I go to or does this place go torches and pitchforks on anybody with a strange idea?
Something algorithmic. I have a couple ideas in that direction.
Assuming a good moderation automation, what good reason would anybody have for wanting the job?
An unjust system is a filter that prefers stupid. I think that’s fair to say. And with time the stupid only amplifies via positive feedback.
So it’s a choice between stupid and chaos.
Hmm, tough choice.
No power to the membership. All power to the moderators. No courts. No legal process. Moderators’ rule is law. No necessity to even explain or justify their actions. As if it were their house.
Then stupidville suits you.
Tell me what my agenda was.
deleted by creator
yes.
Their ideas are crafted to justify their emotions, just like yours and mine.
Better to address their emotions. Get them relaxed, peaceful, high. And suddenly their ideas change automatically. Their behavior too.
Intolerance is an expression of anger. So are a lot of other bad behaviors. Anger always finds a way.
Get rid of the anger and you get rid of the intolerance.
or else you’ll be untolerated?
Methinks your algorithm is too simplistic.
Have you considered using your own judgment?
deleted by creator
Yes, pretty much
But it’s our conversation.
You imply that the server has greater value than the conversation. That isn’t so.