this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
56 points (75.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4073 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

His intellectual defenders make their case that the danger is overblown.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah I do not doubt it - I've seen that happen in every Reddit sub I have ever visited. Quite frankly the problem is a general "information security" one for which there is much theoretical support - e.g. how does a cell avoid manufacturing a virus, how does a body avoid letting its cells grow malignantly, how does an engine avoid letting its parts bash around and destroy itself after one slips loose from its fashionings? Pro-Tip: most often the answer is "it does not", and the system gets destroyed. To counteract such contamination takes EFFORT, which is only possible b/c we do not exist in a closed system and instead have far more energy being thrown at us than we currently use even the tiniest fraction of. Nature has demonstrated SOME solutions for us, but ofc the wider issue remains, and any time the tiniest crack in the armor appear, something will manage to slip in, that is just entropy and there seems no way around THAT (possibly even in theoretical terms, at least within this singular universe; though extremely high efficiency could substantially flatten the curve).

Here on Lemmy several people including me have talked at length off and on over the months about how to make a better discussion forum environment where that does NOT happen. e.g. so many people say that karma should not be used, EVER, in an automated manner but I take a different approach. Certainly there should exists magazines that use that approach - like 4chan - but I for one would like to choose to not visit them:-P. Instead, I want people to talk who are vetted, e.g. someone who is not already known to be an absolute rabid asshole who cannot, WILL NOT hold their tongue, and instead delights in ruthlessly making fun of others, confident in the knowledge that nobody will stop them, and others will even egg them on. e.g. I am in fan of moderation, especially if it could be done in a mostly automated way. Wikipedia does this well imho.

Anyway, my idea would fail miserably in the situations you describe, b/c while wikipedia relied on the idea that people are inherently good actors, on the whole, in a place such as hexbear or lemmygrad, they seem to be... not? Innuendo Studies described that AT LENGTH in a video series Why Are You So Angry, discussing the tactics used by 4chan boards that predate the Alt-Right but where those tactics were later refined to work to even greater affect to involve someone who literally controls nuclear technology and could start WWIII on a whim, short of outright treason to stop it (hey, remember when someone did that at the end of the last presidency, and all the Republicans said "naw, don't worry about it dude, you did the right thing"? good times, good times, when WWIII almost began right then and there...:-P). So, moral of this self-centered portion of the story: I am not so smart. The approach used by wikipedia and the scientific peer-review process, does NOT apply when there are "bad actors", especially bots that can be spun up by the thousands and mimic the actions of humans.

Even so, I still think that there is something to the idea of Trust authentication, that is used to such good effect in so many places. It is vulnerable too, as are all things. And the thing I have to always remind myself: any tool can be used to whatever effect its wielder wants, so "those places" can use that SAME EXACT tactic to make themselves into wretched hives of scum and villiany (to borrow a quote from Star Wars:-D), just as other places want to do the exact opposite. The unfortunate part there is that they refuse to label themselves as such - i.e. they call themselves "leftists", the same way that the GQP (laughably) says that it is "Pro-Life", and the same way that those who showed up at the January 6 riots in the USA White House were "defending" (ahem) the Constitution of the United States of America. Even though all of those do the literal, full, and polar opposite of what they say.

Which, get used to it, is their RIGHT to do so, and is a condition that will remain forever - hence e.g. cancer is going to do its thing, and it takes a doctor to force it to turn around; and rioters are going to do their thing, until police or shopowners or whoever stop them; and so on and so forth for entropy to be overcome by effort. Can you tell how I've given up? Viruses will always do their thing, and I cannot cease the production of all viruses in all cells across the globe, I can only do my little part near me, so that is what I do, and I leave the rest alone.