TheObviousSolution

Context: CEO of a RAM manufacturing company to investors.

Nobody tends to mind mod / admin biases until it affects them personally, me included. Nobody wants to change it, it just keeps getting shifted to "oh, you can't rely on that guy? then move over to this community, you can totally rely on this other guy".

Don't you guys realize mods and admins are better and smarter than you guys? That's why you shouldn't have access to see the votes like they can, that's why it's you who needs to leave a community instead of just being able to opt to different moderation, that's why they can call you out for behaving a certain way and then ignore it when people who support their stance do it.

News and politics tends to attract opinionated participation and the people who want to manipulate or constrain them to their own biases get attracted to moderating those communities. My advice is to ignore the masks people put on and look at how, how many, and under what biases they are actually moderating under.

One of the things I wish modlogs had is the ability to respond to them. Sure, that might mean dealing with them being further jackasses in the modlog if they are honestly misbehaving, but isn't that also a possibility on Ye Power Trippin' Bastards?

The admin/mod instance wouldn't even have to allow it to be visible, it could just be visible from their own home instance. If that's an actual problem, the home instance can get involved or just get defederated if it gets to that. It could be toggled as an option from the home instance.

As it is, even Google Maps has better "modlogs". Still fairly easy to simulate, as someone could just action their action in their home instance and include their reply to the actual action there.

Claiming "it's the AutoMod, stupid" is not an excuse. Even an AutoMod can provide better replies than this. What is the actual reason for modlogs if they don't matter anymore? Marketing?

From my understanding, the pedophilia was used as a means, not the ends. They wanted to be influential, and trying to get socially awkward scientific leaders who probably didn't have great relationships with the opposite sex was probably particularly effective.

They tried to create an exclusive "social elite" men's club, using prostitution and pedophilia as their tools, and sure it's an example of misogyny and power imbalance, but frankly, I still wouldn't respect them if we flipped around the genders or evened them out. Science doesn't have an Epstein problem, it has a misogyny and power imbalance problem.

Maybe it also has a pedophilia and prostitution problem, but the article doesn't really explore that, it's just guilt by association. Which, fair enough, it's Epstein, but I doubt being as manipulative as they were that they tried to sell themselves the same to everybody.

I mean America has plenty of industries the rest of the world depends on. Unfortunately, a lot of the good takes involve ignoring a lot of the bad ones that helped obtain them.

Don't be proud of your country, be proud of the societies you are willing to participate in and contribute towards. If you don't find yourself living inside a good one, go and search it out.

You fail to understand the difference between correlation and causation. That they have wealth and power is different from how it is used. Having said that, yeah, my definition is sort of different because I also consider the social bubble aspect that they live in (hence my Trump comment).

Let me ask you, what happens when your revolution is successful, and it is you that has wealth and power. It doesn't take a lot of imagination, the CCP is sort of this.

It all depends on the definition of class, and it is such an arbitrary one. What I meant was that if your definition is arbitrary enough, it tends to include a lot of false positives. There are a number of rich people who have said that they should be taxed more and have not shown any indication of contradicting themselves, for example.

I have no problem with security cameras either. Asshole like Elon make a car with cameras, and suddenly the GDPR doesn't apply and judges switch to issuing subpoenas to their owners in case they might have caught a nearby crime instead of issuing fines.

Having some decent surveillance that you aren't an asshole with (hint: if you are using to track and profile people and you are the sort of person who likes to doxx, you probably are) brings ease of mind. You no longer have to suppose who or when some crime might have been committed, and even if it's not useful for catching them they can effectively help you make your prevention more effective. If governments cared about our security, they would just make sure they had no backdoors or mass surveillance capabilities, they would at least allow for personal, localized usage for our property a lot more.

Didn't know about the term sousveillance, that's awesome because that's what I've been arguing for all along.

Basically poisoning the well for augmented reality glasses.

The people who make those arguments are the sort who play en passant.

Even just from a practical point of view, this sounds like a horrible idea. The pilot is about the one thing you should not skimp on.