you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 1 year ago (64 children)

To be fair: The Democratic Party isn't a viable political engine for positive social change or a working-class agenda. If Cuomo wins it will be yet another example of how untrustworthy, hypocritical, and vapid Blue No Matter Who voting habits are.

  • source
  • hideshow 64 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wouldn't Cuomo not have the (D) next to his name this time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    You’re missing the point. Vote Blue No Matter Who means that competitors are supposed to step aside after a primary and support the winning candidate. In practice, this means they expect the losing progressive candidate to suck it up and support the establishment democrat. Now that a progressive has won the primary, the establishment democrat is refusing to step aside.

    So yes, he technically won’t have a D next to his name, but it is well understood that he is an arm of the political machine that is refusing to respect the will of the voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The point is its "vote blue no matter who" until it's against the pro-business centrists in the Democratic party, and then it's "fuck you, we'll run independent and split the vote to let a Republican win!" because they only say that it's important to not let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to corrupt fuckheads who don't give a single iota of a shit about working class people. They're happy to drop the facade when someone like Mamdani gets in, they'd rather a Republican win than someone with real plans for change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (55 children)

    Remember when mods coordinated to ban any criticism of BNMW / Blue Maga from all the major subs during 2024? How they the cultivated a community of briggading, sea-lioning, etc.. to try and suppress any criticism of an approach to politics that was obviously going to hand the country to Trump?

    .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yes, and they've apparently decided to abandon this community in order to wall themselves off from we BoTh SiDeS-ers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I mean, they lost. And more than just the election. They lost the battle for ideological control of how to do politics; of how to win elections, which was always the premise that justified their reason for being: Their loss is existential.

    The core of their argument was that their cynicism was required to win elections. That we had to sacrifice our values, for whatever reason, to be able to "win" the election. To reiterate what our criticisms. Originally, it was with Biden. That without a serious pivot on Gaza and to right wing "enlightened centrism" that had guided his path to that point, he would lose the election. The later criticism was with Harris, and basically identical: That without pivoting and focusing on the issues the base was concerned with, that she would lose the election.

    @Phillip_The_Bucket is demonstrating the same cynicism in this thread that lost the election for all of us in his fraudulent interpretation of our critique. The argument wasn't that Biden or Harris should lose. We we're point out that they were losing, and at least some of us where arguing what they needed to do to win. If you were to point out the obvious fact that Biden was polling, somehow below DJT, in Dec 2023/Jan 2024, you would get down voted all to hell, if not outright banned. You would get called a bot. Or an NPC. Or an russian operative. Or any other number of slurs. I presented a scientific analysis showing that it was statistically impossible for Biden to turn things around in March of 2024. It was removed as misinformation and I received a ban for it. This isn't conjecture. Its all documented. Ask @Return2Ozma some of the names they've been called and insults they've had to suffer for simply posting articles that actually reflect reality.

    They were wrong to begin with, insisted on staying committed to something that they knew was both a moral and tactical disaster, they were wrong after Biden dropped out, they were wrong up until the day of the election, and they've been wrong since. Alternatively, the exact same critiques we've been levying for years now have become the mainstream interpretation of past events. And now, with Mandami's victory we're showing something even more powerful. That there is real power in doing the right thing and speaking ones truth. And thats simply not possible for those whose politics is based on the false validation cynicism offers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Your core point here is actually something that deserves a little more of a response than I feel like typing up here. I'll make a post in some "political discussion" community and maybe send you a note about it, because how we make forward progress and deal with the brokenness of the Democratic party is obviously a pretty important topic that is highly relevant to this story.

    I just want to deal with this stuff a little, since you did try to tag me:

    The core of their argument was that their cynicism was required to win elections. That we had to sacrifice our values, for whatever reason, to be able to "win" the election. To reiterate what our criticisms. Originally, it was with Biden. That without a serious pivot on Gaza and to right wing "enlightened centrism" that had guided his path to that point, he would lose the election. The later criticism was with Harris, and basically identical: That without pivoting and focusing on the issues the base was concerned with, that she would lose the election.

    That wasn't the core of my argument. The core of my argument was that, with the exception of Gaza, Biden already embodied every one of the values you're claiming you weren't willing to sacrifice: On income inequality, on climate change, on corporate corruption, on policing, on basically everything, he was the best leader we'd had in decades, someone who actually made some small amount of forward progress after, which is especially impressive given that he had to deal with a mostly-dogshit Democratic congress to try to get it all done with, and letting Trump win the next election just to spite the Democrats for not being "left enough" (which, yes, they are not) because of a mostly fantastical conception of what Biden even did in the first place, was going to lead to (1) a total cessation of any forward progress, in or out of politics (2) horrors that would have been hard to conceive of, some small number of which are coming true even now (before he turned the deportation machine into the third largest military in the world).

    It was based on grabbing quotes and pretending they corresponded to policy, assembling misleading little talking-points, and outright lying. And, of course, pointing to Gaza. That was one thing that the anti-Biden crew had 100% in the bag without needing to misconstrue a damn thing. It was a horror, a stain on the world, and he was arming the whole thing the whole time through. So what could anyone say to defend it? Fair enough. And then, Kamala Harris came along, who hadn't done any of that, and y'all blamed her for it anyway, and went back into this wild fantasy-land where the only answer to save Palestine was to let Trump win.

    Anyway, now we're in the timeline we're in. I really hope that it is the catalyst for something better, the kind of popular revolution and massive upset to our politics that's always been what we need, and not too many people have to die in the meantime to make that happen. I honestly don't even really know what the answer is, in terms of finally making the American government a decent operation that can provide for its people some kind of decent life and future. I hope it happens before the whole world explodes.

    I also know that you're lying about what "we" said before the election, what Biden's record was before the election, what the mods did before the election (I guarantee you you cannot find stuff in the modlog where someone was banned for posting a poll that showed Biden behind or something), what "our" (my at least) goals are in all of this, and all the rest of it. You're trying to reframe it all in this innocent way by retconning that something totally different happened than what happened. So, that makes me suspicious of your motives, and of the honesty of all the constructive criticism you're now trying to offer, yes.

    Let's hope Cuomo fucks things up for the establishment, let's hope Mamdani gets somewhere and his message keeps spreading, with or without the help of the current people in power. Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I also know that you’re lying about what “we” said before the election, what Biden’s record was before the election, what the mods did before the election (I guarantee you you cannot find stuff in the modlog where someone was banned for posting a poll that showed Biden behind or something), what “our” (my at least) goals are in all of this, and all the rest of it.

    Jokes on you, I've spent almost two years developing tooling to do specifically this because lemmy still lacks an adequate external API. Unfortunately, I'm not independently wealthy and I do have a day job and haven't made much progress in a few months, but I am planning on releasing it as a public tool when I can get around to it. And considering I've finally found the line giving me shit at my day job, I'm going to have to keep it short.

    I specifically am building it to document the relationship between how moderation operates as a power structure and structures narratives of the community. Its a work in progress but I've shared components of it with others (SatansMaggotyCumFart, for one, who wanted me to use it to do an investigation of UniversalMonk).

    The issue is broad and isn't able to be contained to just one sub, so its going to have to span many subs, but effectively I'm testing how moderation functions to support some narratives and inhibit others.

    I would appreciate if you repost this to maybe one of the debate subs that I think someone started. Its probably better to house the discussion there then to create an endless series of responses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I specifically am building it to document the relationship between how moderation operates as a power structure and structures narratives of the community. Its a work in progress but I've shared components of it with others (SatansMaggotyCumFart, for one, who wanted me to use it to do an investigation of UniversalMonk).

    I think this is 100% an excellent idea. I am firmly convinced that you'll find it works the opposite of the way you're saying it does here (you'll find that there are certain types of topics where flamewars develop, and some mods whose names aren't really commonly spoken tend to sanction participants on one and only one side of the flamewar, more or less, the "pro-Democrat" side.) But I'd be happy to wait and see what the data on it is. Who knows, maybe anyone who spoke poorly of Biden was getting banned and it happened all the time but you really do need to build a whole analysis tool to give me even a single example.

    I would appreciate if you repost this to maybe one of the debate subs that I think someone started. Its probably better to house the discussion there then to create an endless series of responses.

    Agreed. Like I said, aside from all the backbiting about who said what before the election and whose fault it all is, there is actually a useful conversation to be had about what can even happen in American politics that's good right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (49 children)

    My ass. I wish the mods had banned obviously disingenuous "let's let Trump win to make a point, what's the difference anyway" made-up critique that blamed Kamala Harris for Gaza and inflation, under a tissue-thin pretense of "I just care about the country sooooooooooooooooooooo much that I'm giving well informed constructive criticism." Instead we had to just yell at y'all about it in the comments, which since there were hundreds of posts and comments every single day with that viewpoint was always a losing battle. Even trolling of crayon-quality transparency of the UniversalMonk variety was explicitly allowed by the mods, and people who objected to it too strongly got banned for it.

    The whining about how you're not allowed to get your message out, which is constantly broadcasted on every channel where you're claiming you're being silenced, is just part and parcel of the alternate reality you're having a good bit of success in constructing. MAGA does it too, it's part of the package.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (42 children)

    You do understand that your cynical lying about the past is why your camp is losing the argument? I mean, I don't dislike you, at least not personally, and and even if I have to drag you by the hair onto the right side of history, I'll at least afford you the charity required for you to fix yourself.

    There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up. It doesn't help your following arguments to simply lie about a reality people can easily go reference for themselves, if they didn't live the experience themselves, as many of us have. A conjecture rooted in the same cynicism that cost us the election.

    Now as before, your cynical misrepresentation of the arguments which were made also works against you. We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election. And we had the same claims you are levying, here, now, levied against us them. That we were secret Trump supporters. That we were the ones costing the Democrats the election. And then, as it does, the truth of the matter has a way of finding itself out. And we who stayed focus on an accurate and valid criticisms we're proven right. In-spite of this, and this is the true cost of cynicism, you continued to reject the analysis and criticism of those who got it right. Instead of showing grace and changing, yours doubled down on your wrongness, when even the beltway insiders had the humility to recognize how wrong they'd been. No. No instead you embraced the worst instinct: to double down on the cynicism. Harris needed to pivot away from Biden's policies and political techniques to come back in the extra innings she was afforded. But no. The cynics won the side-line arguments on how to handle the extra time we got on the clock (and let us not forget, these same cynics were the ones arguing against replacing Biden), and we all suffer because.

    We should listen to the people who got it right, to begin with, and who stayed right the whole time. We should ignore those who are guided by cynicism and fear. Sacrificing your values for billionaire donations isn't just morally abhorrent: Its also bad strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (41 children)

    There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up.

    Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.

    We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election.

    I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones, and all the forces that marshaled a variety of bad-faith bullshit against Biden would start to do the same against Harris, and people in this country literally can't tell up from down when it comes to the election. And, in the election, that's what happened.

    A lot of what you're saying happened also, yes. I'm genuinely confused about how you're accusing me of being cynical about it or telling the Democrats to be more right wing. What statements did I make that led you to think that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones,

    Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

    This absolute baldfaced refusal to accept reality from Democrat loyalists up and down the party structure, makes the whole party look unserious. Team sports, ‘my guy can do no wrong’ horseshit that they also see from the MAGAs, but team red talks game about inflation and the economy - and isn’t the incumbent seen as responsible for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

    What? No, not even slightly. I'm saying that the people who are extensively hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork, the media pretending that Trump was a controversial but ultimately capable businessman who would fix the economy that was hurting them so badly, and any particular thing the Democrats did wrong was justification for having a multi-week freakout, and also the fact that most Americans get their political news from TikTok and Facebook if they get it at all.

    Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork

    I agree (and did), but posting that context often was dismissed with “it’s election season, quit posting FUD if you’re not a troll/bad-faith”. Y'all weren’t there for the discussion even - as was shown with Gaza.

    But the basic fact is that the candidate(s) and party apparatus either: A) Fundamentally failed to read the room and see the obvious discontent and voter backlash over several policy stances and material realities, or B) Knew all that and still decided to run the campaign they wanted to, whilst cynically wielding the Republicans as a worse option to impel democrat voters on the left, so they could run to the center and abandon the working class to the Republicans

    Nobody forced them or their staffers to pick option B, even as their own internal polling showed their defeat was all but assured under option B. And here we are.

    Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.

    So when do I get to play the ‘Quit spreading FUD’ card then? Because as you said, if nothing was going to fundamentally change re:platform, why not present a new and younger candidate after Biden’s cognitive meltdown, and claw back some of the party’s reputation with the electorate? Why not hold a ‘speed primary’? Why let cynicism win out and accept Biden drowning the party with him, because ‘nobody else can do better’ while he’s an elder lich that refuses to let go of power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Honestly, I'm just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.

    …then stop posting/lurking in .world then? Or accept that it’s not your backyard, and you have different views?

    The DNC is not on Lemmy

    Doubtful, though I’d still hold out for some Linux-hatted staffer Venn intersection. But I’m sure that web crawlers and API scrapers are, which do feed into data sets used to judge people’s opinions. And there’s definitely a lot of neoliberals who lurk and comment, amongst other political stripes.

    I'm happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first

    Lmao if you actually want to genuinely talk to some, that line is condescending as fuck and you should never use it. And re: Gaza? Just scroll up, you brought up Gaza in your first reply in this comment thread - unprompted. Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?

    I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.

    Sounds like you're not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I'm not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate

    You read my exasperation as hostility, because my initial reply was to a lot of your hand waving that ‘anyone would have been as bad as Biden’ completely sidesteps his obvious cognitive state, and the withering voter enthusiasm he carried both in and out of the party.

    Sounds like you're not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive.

    Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?

    You got challenged on a massive point of context, confirmed your actual position, to which I agreed and then pivoted to their doomed strategy of ‘I wouldn’t do anything differently’ was a failure from the jump, and your response is cynical elitism? Good luck convincing others dude

    Like I said, I'm not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.

    👋

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?

    Lol I mean being straight with you and responding factually to what you were saying, responding substantively and clarifying, definitely didn't work. Oh well. Also, "cynical" at least in the original meaning doesn't mean what you think it means.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.

    Yes and no. Yes I can, in that I've built out at least some of the tools to do so. I can't in that I'm still at work today and haven't returned to that project in quite a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (31 children)

    So anyone can look it up, but in order to look it up, you'd have to build some tools and it's a whole project?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Find a particular modlog entry from last year. See how long it takes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (26 children)

    I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced. I could dig far enough into my comment history to find them. In-fact I was digging through some banned community members and found some examples just the other day.

    What I'm doing is far, far larger in scope. I'm not trying to find one instance, I'm trying to find all of them. I'm also interested in correlating that to "shifts in the overall narrative" to the sub. And I'm trying to do this across several prominent subs. And I'm not doing this in an adhoc way. When I have results they'll be publishable.

    I've built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc.. but some aspects aren't reliable enough yet to be completely useful.

    This is some example output using flyingsqids data: https://tmpweb.net/jS19ePfgNdz0/

    (scroll to the bottom, then scroll up instead of starting at the top)

    The first analysis is a "trolling/ not trolling" analysis. Then its a frequency analysis. I used squid because of their preposterous number of comments. Some weeks they were commenting almost ever 3 minutes for hours on end.

    If life we're simpler I'd be further along on this project, but alas, the bills. They do not pay themselves. And its a hobby thing I'm not getting paid for, so its the last to get access to my time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

    Ozma's ban comes to mind pretty lazily. But I'm not trying to do additional work on your behalf right now. I just had a long day and I'm done working for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    I mean this isn't really a conversation. this has been me asking as gracefully as I can to step away from the conversation and come back to it another time, and you insisting on continuing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    (back at work and on a real key board now so I can do longer formed responses)

    But this is also why we need the tools I'm building. What I'm talking about can only really be "witnessed", outside of anectdata, in the aggregate. If you wanted to help, I'm need to find specific instances of this happening and the Ozma one is low hanging fruit because the mod who did the ban said in precise language that it was being done in an effort to control the narrative (regardless of if you agree with the editorial bias or not, I think we take jordan at their word). Agreeing with the political bias of the ban, doesn't mean it wasn't an example of an authority (a mod) using that authority to structure the political narratives of the commons, which is what I'm trying to identify.

    Specifically, there are a few mods who regularly were getting into flaming arguments which would result in them banning the counter party. flyingsquid was notorious for this, and its a task I need to do to validate a system for automatically identifying its occurrence. I need a couple real examples, so if you find any, send them my way. Some other good subs to look for are c/world and c/political_memes. Squid would regularly flame people then ban them.

    And as far as "endless stream"; thanks, because that gave me another task to put on the to do list. What Ozma got banned for isn't actually what I'm really looking for (although it could be, but its beyond my original scope). What I'm really looking for are bans related to things that happen in the comments. But it would be important to getting a complete picture to also look at someones posts and maybe try and look at how that impacts narratives. That's a much more difficult process though, but I'm sure in review we'd get asked why we didn't do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    so can u tell me more about this project wen u have time?

    Certainly! I can also give you code you can work and play around with yourself. I'm more than happy to send you some boiler plate you can play around with yourself.

    but are you using it to attack users or to find out bad mod actions and proof of mods and admins and people like @PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au who obsess and witchhunt people they disagree with?

    Well, not really any of the above. I've tried with some mild success to build a "troll detection" system, but it needs far more work. Also, in the months since my initial work on this matter, I've found some far better approaches and would want to implement them. So my old work isn't reflective of the new direction I'm planning to take.

    Fundamentally, I'm interested in these things from an academic perspective. How do conversations (debate) online work? What governs them? There are obviously rules (you can read them on the side bar), but there are also "rules" that aren't written on the side bar. What are the unwritten rules?

    What does it take to "change" someones mind? Or, more broadly, what does it take to change a communities mind? How do power dynamics play into that? For example, you've probably read my thread with @PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au at this point about the power mods have to steer the direction of a community.

    Part of the reason I'm interested in this is because its part of my lived experience. I watch how myself and others were, frankly, absolutely brigaided against, for months, years on end, for holding critical but important positions on the Democratic party. It was very, very bad. We had opinions that were not very popular at the time and suffered as a result. But things changed, and time has shown we were right in our criticism. So what dynamics were at play that resulted in those perspectives being at first oppressed/ suppressed, to then become the dominant narratives? How does that work? What is its function?

    Beyond that, I'm a quantitative person. I want a number at the end of the day; as shocking as it might be with all my discussion of narrative, at the end of the day I want a number, something solid I can stand on. So doing this kind of work in my own way, I want to find a way to quantify these things. Its not enough for me to simply look at an encode the stories; I want to put a number on it. That means building things up to be reproducible and automated to support large, if not census, level samples.

    Finally, I really like doing network analysis. Its something I do professionally, but its just something I think is neat. Taking all of those previous questions and putting them into the context of a social network, thats something that sounds really challenging and fun to me.

    And in regard to your other question:

    this sounds gross and very much like witch-hunting and stalking. yes, all comments are public but u coming up w a tool just to find someones and analyze and make judgement on them seems gross and out of line. think of how fasicst and controling that sounds. what if some republican was doing that and bragged about it? think about that

    I mean, you do realize that anyone, quite literally anyone, could form a 1 person instance and vacuum up all comment, post, etc.. data from every other instance? I don't have issue with it, in the same manner that I don't have issue someone going through all 9k of my comments and reading them. If I didn't want them to be made public, I wouldn't make those comments. There are things I don't say because I don't want that information to be made public. Fundamentally these things are about power dynamics. For something to be fascistic or controlling I would have to have power over someone or something. I don't. I have no secret access to any secret information, I have no power over any one or any thing. I'm simply working with and observing what is present.

    This is a somewhat famous thread here that I recommend you read all of the comments of. Its the one @PhillipTheBucket@quokk.au and I are discussing. It also highlights the dynamic I'm interested in illustrating. Here is the link: https://lemmy.world/post/16224102?sort=Top

    I recommend sorting by "Top" and reading through the first couple comment threads from top to bottom. Then scroll to the very bottom and read the comment threads in reverse order, basically most down voted. This should give you an idea for the type of dynamic I'm identifying, and the research I'm interested in conducting is how this dynamic shifted within our community. These days you would see an inversion of which narratives are being upvoted and which ones are being down-voted. So how did that come to be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Well, not really any of the above. I've tried with some mild success to build a "troll detection" system, but it needs far more work. Also, in the months since my initial work on this matter, I've found some far better approaches and would want to implement them. So my old work isn't reflective of the new direction I'm planning to take.

    I've actually done a version of this and a couple of other various ideas about it. The current WIP idea works totally differently to what you are talking about, I actually got as far as making a community for it, but then abandoned the effort because I couldn't figure out a way to deploy it that would be in any way productive.

    I'm going to say it knowing ahead of time that roughly 100% of the people reading are going to think it's a terrible idea: It is an LLM-based moderator that watches the conversation and can pick out bad faith types on conduct in the conversation. I actually 100% agree with you about political conversation online being almost exclusively a big waste of time (including because of the way moderation happens and people trying to deliberately distort the narrative). This was just my idea to try to help it.

    The thing that led me to never do anything with it was that I didn't feel like anyone would ever buy into it enough to even take part in a conversation where it was deployed (even assuming it worked passably well which is not proven). If you care about these issues also, though, would you like to try the experiment of having the whole conversation we're having with it observing the conversation and weighing in? I would actually like to, I'd be fine with continuing with the questions you were asking and continuing this whole debate about moderation and its impact on Lemmy, in that context. Let me know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The thing that led me to never do anything with it was that I didn’t feel like anyone would ever buy into it enough to even take part in a conversation where it was deployed

    Yeah I think its got to work for people to buy into it. And frankly my earliest implementations were "inconsistent" at best.

    My thought right now is that the tool needs to do a first pass to encode the "meta-structure", or perhaps.. scaffolding(?) of a conversation.. then proceed to encode the impressions/ leanings. I have tools that can do this in-part, but it needs to be.. "bigger".. whatever that means. So there is sentiment analysis, easy enough. There is key phrase extraction. And thats fine for a single comment.. but how do we encode the dynamic of a conversation? Well thats quite a bit more tricky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    At least for the tool I was talking about, it wasn't planning on banning anyone. I've been a moderator for a decently large collection of forums on Lemmy and I can't even remember the last time I banned someone, although it did happen a handful of times months and months ago. The tool was planned as purely something to give input to the participants about elements of the other person's point that they were getting carried away with their own stuff and not addressing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah, generally having it read the conversation (I think as JSON, maybe in markdown for the first pass, I can't remember, it's a little tricky to get the comments into a format where it'll reliably grasp the structure and who said what, but it's doable) and then do its output as JSON, and then have those JSON pieces given as input to further stages, seems like it works pretty well. It falls apart if you try to do too much at once. If I remember right, the passes I wound up doing were:

    • What are the core parts of each person's argument?
    • How directly is the other person responding to each core part in turn?
    • Assign scores to each core part, based on how directly each user responded to it. If you responded to it, then you're good, if you ignored it or just said your own thing, not-so-good, if you pretended it said something totally different so you could make a little tirade, then very bad.

    And I think that was pretty much it. It can't do all of that at once reliably, but it can do each piece pretty well and then pass the answers on to the next stage. Just what I've observed of political arguments on Lemmy, I think that would eliminate well over 50% of the bullshit though. There's way too many people who are more excited about debunking some kind of strawman-concept they've got in their head, than they are with even understanding what the other person's even saying. I feel like something like that would do a lot to counteract it.

    The fly in the ointment is that people would have to consent to having their conversation judged by it, and I feel like there is probably quite a lot of overlap between the people who need it in order to have a productive interaction, and those who would never in a million years agree to have something like that involved in their interactions...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    the Ozma one is low hanging fruit because the mod who did the ban said in precise language that it was being done in an effort to control the narrative

    That's not at all what he said. He said, more or less, that Ozma had indicated that he was deliberately trying to control the narrative. Specifically, he said he was seeking out anti-Biden stories and posting them as a sort of semi-automated process, just as many as he could find, to bring "balance" or something along those lines to the narrative. He wasn't all that concerned with whether the stories were true -- just "which side" of the narrative they supported.

    Like I said, I actually don't agree with that being a good reason for banning him, although I do agree he should have been banned. To be honest I think the design of a lot of Lemmy's systems, moderation included, is just fundamentally broken. If someone wants to come in and manipulate the narrative (which again was what ozma specifically said he was trying to do), there's not any good way to prevent them, which is a problem.

    Also like I said I think if you study this objectively you will see that mod abuse works the opposite of the way you're thinking that it does. I think the vast majority of mods that are trying to manipulate the narrative are ones most people haven't heard of, that are quietly finding reasons to ban anyone who argues too loudly with return2ozma or whatever. But I'm happy to see the data. Personally, after having looked at the way the systems fit together and how people try to abuse them on both sides of the user/moderator divide, and done a certain amount of your same type of numerical analysis, I think the right thing to do is more or less to just throw a lot of the core concepts away (or, maybe better, layer some better core concepts on top of them and bring moderation back to its role as just keeping the porn / spam away and try to depend on higher-level constructs to keep debates on track.)

    But it would be important to getting a complete picture to also look at someones posts and maybe try and look at how that impacts narratives.

    IDK if you really need to do this. You're welcome to, but I feel like instead of spending any significant time trying to prove any particular way that the existing systems are broken, just accepting that they (in particular the "mods are gods" model) are broken, and trying to make something better, might be a better way.

    I thought today partly because of this conversation about making a politics community which was something along the lines of:


    This community works differently to how most politics communities work. It has strict rules designed to facilitate productive discussion. You can be rude, to a point, but you can't participate in bad faith:

    • If you claim someone said something they didn't say, that's a temp ban.
    • If you make a factual claim but then aren't interested in backing it up, that's a temp ban.
    • If you're asked one or two reasonable questions about what you said, and you're still talking but you're pretending the questions didn't happen, that's a temp ban.

    The idea is to make the discussion productive. Let's see how it works. Maybe this is a fool's errand but IDK how any set of moderation could be worse than lemmy.world.

    Other misc rules:

    • Reliable sources only.
    • No image / video posts.
    • Self posts for discussion are fine.
    • No personal insults.
    • No racism / transphobia / related bigotry.

    In that world, you'd be able to ban return2ozma the first time he posted an article about how Biden did some horrifying thing that he objectively didn't do, and someone asked about it in the comments, and ozma said "IDK I'm just trying to bring balance" and posted 5 more articles. For me, I would vastly prefer that over the current moderation structure where it is sort of arbitrary rules and the comments are mostly a bad faith free-for-all where the mods' actions don't really do all that much beyond keeping obvious death threats and things away.

    Can you sense the salt in my overall feelings lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    I think the vast majority of mods that are trying to manipulate the narrative are ones most people haven’t heard of, that are quietly finding reasons to ban anyone who argues too loudly with return2ozma or whatever.

    A big part of this is about power dynamics. Moderators are in a position of power, return2ozma has only the power of their rhetoric, their prominence, and the support of the community. The power dynamic is important. But we can deal with that when we're writing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    return2ozma has only the power of their rhetoric, their prominence, and the support of the community

    The fuck are you smoking?

    https://lemmy.world/post/16224102

    Top replies:

    • "Good move, they were a clown and pointing out that they were arguing entirely in bad faith is correct."
    • "Dude thank God"
    • "My take is the dude just filled the board with unrelenting misery."
    • "I think I agree more with the spam angle than the “only bad news” angle."
    • "I blocked him quite a while ago. Poll after poll after poll were filling up my feed at one point. Fuck that shit. You sir, may fuck off."

    I can't rightly tell if you are legitimately this bad at remembering / perceiving what is happening on Lemmy, is why you're giving me this whole alternate history where with the power of his rhetoric, he was trying to bring light to the darkness, and the mods just wouldn't allow it so they could shape the narrative, but it's seeming less and less likely that this is innocent mistakenness on your part the longer I talk to you about it.

    • "
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    They aren't a mod. They don't have power in the relationship. Just straight up.

    Mods have a degree of power and control in the relationship that Ozma doesn't have; and you are giving me an excellent example of how they can use that power to structure and control a narrative.

    Mods have a power that a user/ participant will never have.

    And the example you are providing is a perfect example of what I want to highlight. The mods used their power to create the impression of a specific narrative, and you bought it. Other voices, objecting to this, were actively being suppressed in this very thread. But the mods have the power in the relationship, so you see at the top the comments you are highlighting: this is exactly the kind of abuse of power I intend to highlight. And your perceptions of what you think was happening is the exact effect I'm interesting in documenting.

    And the key here, is that, in-spite of their power, reality has a way of coming around. Ozma was "right" in the sense that when history was finally written, they're on the right side of it, and Jordan is on the wrong side. Jordan won the narrative battle, but lost the narrative war. Jordan's ability to control and manage that narrative is perfectly on display in those top comments, but now, the narrative has shifted towards the narrative that Ozma was trying to construct and deliver.

    More broadly, everyone is always trying to construct these kinds of narratives. You are trying to construct a narrative. I'm trying to construct a narrative. Ozma is trying to construct a narrative. Jordan is trying to construct a narrative. But only has Jordan has the ability to drop a ban hammer. That's the critical difference. Thats the power dynamic that is present.

    Edit, to put a finer point on it.

    Say in this thread the community is 90:10 in agreement with the ban. Lets say today that people would be 40:60 in favor of a ban. That's would be a 50 point swing in Ozma's favor.

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

    The mods used their power to create the impression of a specific narrative, and you bought it.

    Everyone knows I always obey what the mods want to shape, as the narrative. Especially Jordan.

    Ozma was "right" in the sense that when history was finally written, they're on the right side of it, and Jordan is on the wrong side. Jordan won the narrative battle, but lost the narrative war. Jordan's ability to control and manage that narrative is perfectly on display in those top comments, but now, the narrative has shifted towards the narrative that Ozma was trying to construct and deliver.

    If you accept a whole bunch of reframings of things into other things, then yes, this makes perfect sense. For example, you might say that because ozma can't say his viewpoint 15 times a day, but only as many times a day as other people who are posting a variety of viewpoints including criticism of the Democrats, that means his viewpoint was suppressed, on purpose because Jordan bans any constructive criticism of the Democrats, and so on.

    I can't really add anything to what I've said already. You're welcome to have the interpretation you like of what happened. It sounds like you're pretty attached to your current one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Okay, but you can at least agree that mods have a form of power that user/participants dont?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lol. We get to the rub of the matter and you want to take your ball and go home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not stopping you from laying out your thing, you can still say it. I feel like it'll probably just be a reiteration of what you already said, which is why I don't really want to go back and forth about it, I got your point already and I felt like I said my thing in turn. But sure, go ahead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I’ve built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc… but some aspects aren’t reliable enough yet to be completely useful.

    this sounds gross and very much like witch-hunting and stalking. yes, all comments are public but u coming up w a tool just to find someones and analyze and make judgement on them seems gross and out of line. think of how fasicst and controling that sounds. what if some republican was doing that and bragged about it? think about that

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh dear, he's going down the list of fallacies, after calling us disingenuous, when I clearly attacked unhinged posts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    You attacked me on some totally unrelated topic, instead of addressing anything I said about this topic.

    If you disagreed with me about whether or not it's totally cool and normal for Lemmy to send people's admin passwords back to the mothership, you could weigh in over on that topic back when we were talking about that (and I'm pretty sure you did). It's all good, the issue is fixed now whether or not it was an honest mistake in the code, and we all had our say on it.

    Now all of a sudden we're talking about some totally different issue, and whether or not anyone in power on Lemmy was "suppressing" or "banning" criticism of the Democrats during the run-up to the election (they were not) is left on the table, forgotten.

    Here's more explanation if you need it, with some examples of how attacking past unrelated arguments or issues can be a good example of using ad hominem to deflect from anything about the issue currently under discussion:

    https://practicalpie.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

    When someone uses an ad hominem fallacy, what's going on inside their head? Often, this tactic is a defense mechanism. People tend to resort to ad hominem when they feel backed into a corner or threatened in some way.

    Instead of tackling the issue or the argument being discussed, it's easier—and emotionally safer—to attack the person making the argument. This is often an unconscious response fueled by cognitive biases like the "confirmation bias," which makes us more likely to believe things that align with our existing opinions.

    Launching an ad hominem attack, on the other hand, is quick and easy. It’s a low-effort way to feel like you're winning an argument, even if you're not actually engaging with the issue at hand. It's a psychological shortcut that undermines rational discussion.

    This is why I always regret it when I go to lemmy.world lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)