"I better let this newscaster know that someone shot a gun at the Charlie Kirk rally, that's important and he's about to talk about it on TV. No need to let him know that Charlie Kirk got shot in the neck when it happened though. That part can come later."
It is shocking to remember sometimes, but hypocritical self-centered ass gaskets are represented in every racial grouping. The white people voting for Trump are fucking themselves just as are the Cuban people voting for Trump, and they all got hoodwinked into it via pretty much the same methods.
The AI art posts aren't that popular, way below average ratio compared to normal Lemmy content. This obviously means that they should be downscored when they're being presented among a bunch of other assorted content, and there's no reason any particular moderator should be able to insert their own content artificially higher than it organically would be, instead of just finding an instance for it that doesn't allow downvotes and moving on.
See how that works? I'm not necessarily saying the polarity you're using for the argument is wrong and mine is the right one, but there's a whole other side. I think there's just not broad agreement on how downvotes are "supposed" to work on Lemmy.
I actually quite like the AI art content and sometimes upvote it when I come across it. I'm just saying that it's sort of a slippery slope (in my subjective opinion) when you start deciding that your content needs to be exempted from downvotes, because it would be a crisis if people were able to give it the score they'd like to give it.
In my mind it's pretty simple.
- Federating or not with a MAGA instance needs to be on the basis of issues a hell of a lot more impactful than any kind of Lemmy voting misdemeanor or anything.
- I actually think that keeping open lines of communications with people under certain authoritarian structures does more to tear them down than any amount of "isolating" them can. It's why I don't have a problem with engaging on lemmy.ml for example. If people can never hear the counterpoint, then it's that much easier for them to continue the mental picture of whatever horribly skewed strawman counterpoint their overlords are telling them is the counterpoint. I don't think defederating from lemmyusa to "punish" them for being MAGA is the way to do it.
- I do think if they're going off instance and being obnoxious, then just booting them is probably the answer. No one's required to degrade their own Lemmy experience for the sake of these folks.
They're always going to be able to manipulate things on their own instance to try to interfere with strategy number 2 above. Lemmy.ml does this, presumably lemmyusa would do the same, just banning anyone from off instance that for whatever reason tries to engage with sensible stuff. But they can't ever do a perfect job at it, and I don't think other instances should be assisting them be pre-emptively shutting off that line of communication.
That is my 2c
It wasn't just that, it was also that they were objectively unhinged when they tried to defend it, instead of just laying out what you just laid out, or admitting "Yes we ban anyone who downvotes because at the end of the day we just don't want our stuff to be downvoted" or something.
when he didn't know Kirk had been hit and targeted
Oh, that's wild. I didn't know that part of it. That's... I mean, that changes things. It's also a little weird though. How would he have heard that there were gunshots at the Charlie Kirk event but not heard that they hit Charlie Kirk? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Impossible. I asked UniversalMonk whether Donald J Musk was him, and he said no, and we all know he never lies.
Yeah, makes sense. I don't think it is reasonable to downvote literally every new post that comes from a given community, unless there is some wild shit coming out of that community or something. I think partly my reaction to this whole issue is colored by that AI art community mod who would literally ban anyone who ever gave his content a downvote, accusing them of being an "anti-AI troll" because his stuff needed to be exempted from criticism. That's the main context I have seen this argument take place in and the dude was entirely off his rocker about it. I get it if your content is completely reasonable and for whatever reason someone's downvoting literally every post or something.
Was this for the television community? I feel like maybe people just don't like TV related content. I kind of feel the same way (and the same for sports content); I don't downvote it, but it doesn't really offend me if the community gives its input "Hey I don't want this." Sometimes people like stuff, and sometimes they don't, it is okay I think.
What do you mean by "mass"? Is it like hundreds of downvotes, or 5-10, or how many? And when you say, "no contribution history on my instance," why is that relevant to whether someone's allowed to downvote? This POV is just kind of strange to me. Why don't people have a right to downvote? Why does your stuff need to be insulated against people being able to "bury" it, isn't that what that button on their UI is for? Back when UniversalMonk and the media bias bot were active on lemmy.world, there were people who would give hundreds or thousands of downvotes to that content, but I feel like that's probably allowed. That's just the reaction.
I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, we may just not see eye to eye on it, I'm just trying to get a sense of what the details are, that's all.
Dowd was also making jokes about it, saying that maybe it was just one of Charlie Kirk's fan firing off his own gun in celebration. Lots of people in the media have been pointing out that Charlie Kirk was a massive piece of shit who specifically was unsympathetic about other people getting shot, that is probably still fine (for now I guess).
And yes, the right has been "joking" about left wing people getting murdered for years. That doesn't mean that adopting their psychopathic traits in turn is the right way to move things forward.
Voting isn't a Lemmywide opinion score
That is precisely what it is. I would say that browsing only a particular community's content and none other is not the most common way that people look at Lemmy.
It's ok for mods to say "this community is only for people who actually like its subject".
Dude what kind of content are people posting that is prompting any detectable number of people to run around downvoting all of it?
Personally my opinion is that if you're using multiple accounts to artificially inflate your number of up or downvotes, you're doing something wrong, but if you just don't like a bunch of content, it doesn't really matter whether "you are part of the community" or like its subject in terms of whether or not you should be allowed to enter downvotes. That's why they're there, for stuff that people don't like. You can always visit an instance which just doesn't allow downvotes, if you feel your stuff needs to be insulated from anyone being able to say that they don't like it.
I really dislike how some mods like to refer to rules by their number. It just makes things needlessly opaque, it's part of the "You meet me where I'm at, because I am your superior" mindset. In this case it makes it kind of hard to even see what he's claiming the issue is with this. Is it because it's referring to mental illness in a sort of ableist way? Eh, maybe that's a little bit legit. But that would be a different rule? Honestly, it just reads like dessalines lets his hamster wander around on the mod controls sometimes, or anything he takes personal offense to he likes to delete from the comments, and he takes personal offense very very easily.