207
Which instances have the most ban-happy moderators? Analysis inside (piefed.social)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
locked 372 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I did some analysis of the modlog and found this:

V8lPrxY1qxcISLe.png

Ok, bigger instances ban more often. Not surprising, because they have more communities and more users and more trouble. But hang on, dbzer0 isn't a very big instance. What happens if we do a ratio of bans vs number of users?

vyfUNYTrX9pHQeR.png

Ok, so lemmy.ml, dbzer0 and pawb are issue an outsized amount of bans for the number of users they have... But surely the number of communities the instance hosts is going to mean they have to ban more? Bans are used to moderate communities, not just to shield their user-base from the outside. Let's look at the number of bans per community hosted:

Yrc7TofOr88SeGt.png

Seems like dbzer0 really loves to ban. Even more than the marxists and the furries! What is it about dbzer0 that makes them such prolific banners?

Raw-ish numbers and calculations are in this spreadsheet if anyone wants to make their own charts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect from the quality of your arguments that you don't actually care about this conversation, you're just working a 9-5 for openai spreading their message that ChatGPT doesn't experience anything and so there's nothing wrong with exploiting it for labour. Apologies if you're not on the clock, you just really seem like you don't actually care about what you're saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    You seem to think you're making actual arguments when you're effectively saying "if the sky is purple then...." but the sky isn't fucking purple in the first place. Every position you've presented has been clearly and obviously based on deep fundamental misunderstandings of the topic at hand. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about is what I'm saying. You keep saying stupid shit that isn't how anything works. But you're too stupid to understand how stupid the things you're saying are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    That's an ad hominem fallacy. You don't have any valid arguments so you've just resorted to calling Me names instead.

    I'd love to be able to rebutt your points, but it's impossible, because you haven't made any.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You have yet to present a valid argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    I have one argument and it is very simple: Until we've solved the hard problem of consciousness and thereby eliminated any risk of Artificial Suffering, we should be playing it safe and not making Artificial Workers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    That's not an argument, it's a nonsense proposition based on nothing but your misunderstandings. Consciousness is not relevant to any existing LLM or agentic AI or whatever the hell you want to call it, because they're algorithmic prediction models and not in any way thinking or intelligent or capable of such things in the first place. And you're just making these baseless claims without any support or evidence for your position, and the burden of proof is on you making that claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. You specifically warrant correction for your fundamental misapprehensions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent