> I can’t afford healthcare or electricity, and ICE just abducted my neighbor. But at least I no longer have to see plaques that mention slavery when I visit national landmarks.
As a general rule of thumb in sites like Reddit and HN - the quality of votes is significantly lower than the quality of comments. This is because it takes much more effort to comment, so there is a selection bias.
I'm not convinced that downvotes add much value. They should be a "this is irrelevant/spam" button but in practice they seem to be used as a "dislike" button to enforce groupthink.
Slashdot moderation and something going by having people tag comments as Insightful, Interesting, Offtopic or flamebait. It assigned positive or negative points based on that.
The two problems were the horrible UI and that at some points evaluators used te negative tags just to punish views they didn't agree with.
Yeah… I don’t understand how anyone could look at the prevalence of advertising and affiliate links on the internet and believe they would for some reason stay away from the LLM products.
Sure Sam Altman and his $200/mo subscribers won’t see them, but it was clear they were coming for free users.
Voting can be for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes I downvote things like that because I want to bury bait that would send an argument into a well-trodden and boring direction.
You're strategy is good. I'm a bit jaded. I try to make up for it with upvotes and clarifying comments... Seems like I often run into people arguing over a misunderstanding.
TBH cigarettes were chemically designed to cause addiction, most music stars smoked cigarettes, then kids did follow them and also smoked. Will not even mention alcohol.
I actually am convinced that it does make Satan worshipping more popular or at least normalized. See: Tumblr. You can say whatever about whether it's good or bad or ironic, but it did happen.
> Later (incorrect) predictions repeatedly featured in Politico magazine's annual lists of "Worst Predictions", including that one of Trump, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden would die from COVID-19 by the end of 2020,[98] that "Republicans will be hunted" if Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election
> In a 2006 blog post, Adams asked if official figures of the number of deaths in the Holocaust were based on methodologically sound research.
It's not about assumptions, it's rationalization. The tribal playbook requires one to demonize the enemy in order to justify what they want to do to them.
It's not Hacker News. It's Musk fans on HN. The article is flagged (anyone can do it) but not dead. My reasonable comment elsewhere in this thread was also flagged by Musk fans but it's still alive.
The mods absolutely endorse it though so in that sense it very much is them. They tend to be extremely dishonest and evasive when confronted directly about it but I mean anyone who has an account here can see with their own lying eyes that this happens multiple times a day, every day and it’s simply not plausible that it’s anything else other than something they support.
The gap between the rules as they are officially written down and the rules as they exist in practice is so wide that it’s basically unrecognisable when you start putting them side by side.
The mods will just gaslight you as well about the entire thing. I know for some unknown reason it’s considered bad form to have anything other than a high opinion of the job they do but I think they do a bad job. I’m not saying it’s not a hard job or anything, I just think they are actively bad at it.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If the system did something different from its purpose, they would change it. I'm sure it's also intentional there's no vouch button for posts. This will change once every high quality post is flagged to death.
I suspect dead usually means shadow ban, at least for comments, and vouch is a way to selectively show through community support a high value comment from an otherwise abusive user. Where flagged is overt, already applies just to that one comment, and vouching in that case wouldn't really make logical sense. Unless we want people to be able to wage flag wars.
I am no Musk fan but this "outrage" is entirely dishonest and stupid. If you have a problem with the images Grok generates, then don't use it. This is bottom of the barrel journalism and it is no wonder the story is flagged.
Why should I answer, you made up your judgement from my initial comment and there was no substance in the reply. My mistake was to reply in the first place. For the record, I understood the colloquialism even if English isn't my native tongue.
Even given Musk's opinions, he clearly understands that the general public doesn't want kids getting hurt, he demonstrated this by saying Trump was in the Epstein files and by repeatedly saying the UK government isn't doing enough to stop child abuse and opining about a UK civil war.
His hypocrisy, his position on the main-character-syndrome-to-narcissism spectrum, him getting a kick out of trolling everyone, or him having straight up psychopathy: whatever it is, I find I no longer care.
> he clearly understands that the general public doesn't want kids getting hurt
This may be giving him too much credit, the only thing we actually know is he thinks being accused of being a pedophile is bad. We know this because he's done it to several people, and flips his shit when it happens to him or his platform. He doesn't actually seem to care about pedophiles or pedophilia given his on going relationships with people he's accused.
Mm. Took me a moment to see your point there, but I think you're right.
If he's only operating on the impact of the words, and ignoring the existence of an observable testable shared reality behind the words, then yes, accusations (either direction) are more damaging in his mind than being seen to support or oppose whatever.
Which is, ironically, a reason to *oppose* absolute freedom of speech, when words have power beyond their connection to reality the justifications fall short. But like I said, I don't care if his inconsistency is simple hypocrisy or something more complex, not any more.
Please elaborate, especially note that people on the internet loudly disagree if Musk's behaviour is supporting or suppressing freedom of expression and I have no way to guess what your position is without spending a lot of time diving into your comment history (a superficial glance didn't disambiguate).
Y'see, this is why I asked you note that people disagree if Musk's behaviour is supporting or suppressing freedom of expression.
First: Musk says he is a "free speech absolutist", his behaviour is incongruent with what he says, he does in fact ban people (and file lawsuits, and fire people) for expression of things not forbidden by law.
Second: Your second quotation of my words, these words:
> Which is, ironically, a reason to oppose absolute freedom of speech...
With these words I am not saying anything about if Musk does or does not support free speech (that's an independent statement which I also believe yields "does not"), I'm saying that the existence of people who operate on the basis of words having power beyond their connection to reality is a reason for any random person or group of people to have limits on free speech, and that my reasons why are summarised by the words after the end of your quotation: the justifications (for absolute freedom of expression) fall short (when such people operate).
Has Musk developed a more nuanced understanding of freedom of expression since claiming to be a "free speech absolutist"? If he has, he's evil rather than simply a hypocrite. But I don't care which.
Doesn't matter what he says, or what anyone says actually. His actions demonstrate it is okay, and, since he is the CEO of X and undoubtedly aware of these issues, we have no choice but to conclude he supports CSAM on X.
This has not meaningfully prevented CSAM generated by Grok. There are simple and trivial ways to stop it outright, including just shutting down Grok. Nobody is doing this, because they don't want to.
Yet it seems to be fine for BlueSky, where their first priority is to create a hermetically sealed opinion chamber at scale, then pay attention to the law.
As opposed to creating a botnet opinion chamber at scale, with a sprinkling of financial incentive for people in LCOL countries and territories to manufacture endless ragebait?
Two biggest pieces of evidence I’ll bring to the table:
- Bots have always been an issue on Twitter, as even Elon expressed during his acquisition. I somehow doubt that one of Twitter’s biggest, most intractable issues is somehow being resolved with fewer employees.
- The fiasco of the account geolocation, showing that many generic rightwing talking point boosters were operating from LCOL and VLCOL countries.
It doesn’t take a leap of faith to connect the dots that when you monetize engagement, you’ll have bad-faith actors using underhanded techniques to farm engagement. Personal opinion inserted: this is the entire rightwing playbook at the moment and it’s working swimmingly.
> sounds like you just want to dismiss a counter-narrative platform
Sounds kind of like you just want to dismiss talking points that run counter to your own with thought-terminating clichés.
This makes sense and much less dystopia than some of the other commenters are suggesting.
reply