db0

You're not expressing a dissenting opinion, you're just being an asshole.

Lol rimu blocked me because I was countering his bullshit a bit too much?

What is this shady shit?

motherfucker, if you try to play pretend as an investigative journalist, you're supposed to ask for an official statement on your final text. In your case you had even had an earlier reply which partially addressed some of your points, didn't ask for any clarifications and then anyway decided not to include even that reply because it conflicted with the narrative in your hit piece. This is so egregious it's leaving me speechless!

or Fediseer also pulls in defederations automatically?

It does not. You can edit your existing censures at any point though to clarify them further.

Please don't jump to bad-faith conclusions. That's not at all what happened.

The threativore bot b0rked out a bit. Fixed now.

We have comms around open-weight and open sourced GenAI tech on our instance. You can start on !stable_diffusion@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Votes are tallied by simple up/down votes, not comments

The problem imho with this vote is that it requires people without scientific background on this issue, to declare confidently what the scientific consensus is. And this is going into really tricky if not downright philosophical subjects on consciousness and so on. This is going to be extraordinarily difficult to enforce without constant complains about overreach. What does one do when the argument being had, is specifically about what the science actually says?

The whole issue here arose because the debate around some issues of veganism between comrades, was too upsetting to some and sometimes driving people away. I think it might be more apt to try to make a ruleset which can prevent the kind of dialogue that can reinforce the societal toxicity and start driving our vegan comrades away.

For this specific proposal to make sense to me, it would more have to be that "We as the FAF, consider the scientific consensus on this subject settled as such-and-such and we will sanction people who go against that position". And allow leeway to open posts to explicitly to challenge whether the science is actually settled that way, as science is evolving and as an escape hatch, but in a controlled manner.

EDIT: That being said, blatantly anti-scientific takes (i.e. ones that go against established scientific consensus) should generally not be allowed as per instance rules.

EDIT2: Overall I think this proposal might need a big of a community workshop before putting to a formal vote to establish what exactly will be against the rules, and how it will be handled.

Here's the feddit.org voting thread https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63525728

Bring it up in the appropriate comms, it's out of scope for this thread