Look instead for the reported causes. The effect “is sundown town or not” might be difficult to conclusively prove or disprove. The causes are sometimes documented though.

Unfortunately true. It’s disturbing to see the non-policy-related causes from that page:

Police discrimination (a crime)

Vandalism (a crime)

Discriminatory housing practices (currently a crime)

Gentrification (a market effect)

Supplemented with actual policy change. They don’t need the help.

In this age of ubiquitous phone cameras and instant social judgement, I look forward to the backlash as racists reveal themselves.

What’s the civic process for replacing senators and representatives who fail to impeach him?

(Please stop saying Luigi. We need to talk about actual civic processes that can work, instead of criminal fantasies.)

Wait, so what are they doing that they want us not paying attention to? You don’t burn a controversy like this unless you really want peoples’ eyes off of something big.

I feel like innovations that improve moderation should be celebrated. (And then immediately cloned from new-Digg into new Fediverse features.)

I, too, think humans become incapable of learning from their mistakes when they become wealthy. That’s what keeps them wealthy of course.

More seriously, it makes sense that this could become a good thing. If it’s true that Kevin failed the first time by lacking the confidence to stand up for his ideals, why are we judging what we haven’t seen yet? Give him a chance.

(Is that true? I’m open to being wrong.)

If they ran ads asking Reddit moderators to catalogue their frustrations, it feels reasonable that he could be bankrolling solutions to address those weaknesses and problems.

I’m excited to see what amazing new Fediverse features will be inspired by what he pays his teams to build for Digg.

(I need some hope for the future, damnit. Do NOT take this away from me.)

Is moderation difficult? What makes it difficult?

What happens to the “spirit of discovery and genuine community” when moderation fails?

It’s ok to fear that someone else could get rich through trickery.

It’s also ok to have hope that people learn from past mistakes and try to build something good.

AI can generate slop, but it can also understand, categorize, filter, moderate. It can also be slow to adapt to new attacks, or be analyzed and manipulated.

I can’t offer much help to people who need to decide right now if it’s good or bad. Predicting the future is a messy thing. But I choose to be cautiously optimistic.

Companies share info about their customers sometimes. That shared info gets added to data products for marketing. Sometimes spammers buy or steal those data products.

I hope they explain further. Honestly I don’t think the “oh crap I need to know if it’s good or bad right now!” camp is really going to care, but it still feels a little uncomfortable. (As opposed to the “this could be either way, I don’t have enough evidence to decide right now, and I’m ok with holding that uncertainty in my brain until new evidence moves my needle” camp)

Are forked builds possible with third party service references neutered?

I’m a professional C# developer, and I switched to iPhone in 2020. Mostly I wanted a more controlled, curated App Store for increased confidence in a safe execution environment. I’ll pay the $100/yr for a developer account if I really need to build and run my own code.

The lack of ad block options bugs me. I also don’t use iCloud.

I have doubts about whether this question is asking or proselytizing.

I don’t like this. Everything you’re saying is true, but this argument isn’t persuasive, it’s dehumanizing. Making people feel bad for disagreeing doesn’t convince them to stop disagreeing.

A more enlightened perspective might be “this might be true or it might not be, so I’m keeping an open mind and waiting for more evidence to arrive in the future.”

Judges can act.

These systems all have disaster recovery plans. We can’t possibly know how competent their admins are or how up to date their backups are. But it’s not our job to know this. Debating details isn’t the point, and there’s zero amount of online discussion that will make the worry and anxiety go away. Just remember there are backups and be calm.

Personally I know that media companies, who use their content to sell ads, will not protect me from this “worry and anxiety denial of service” that’s going on. They sell more ads when people doom scroll. So I have to protect myself. I want you to protect yourself as well.

I try to recognize when there are things I can’t do anything about, but that I know good people are still working to protect.

Don’t worry, you aren’t missing much. That paragraph was kind of goofy anyway.

Think of a Seedbox as a cloud service provider with convenience features focused on enabling piracy, by keeping the hardware in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care what you pirate and giving you one-click easy installation methods for apps that make piracy simple. But without going so far as “Thank you for your payment, download these specific media files here.”

You debatably have to be a techie. But by techie standards it’s very easy to use.

If you really hate piracy, I suppose you could pay for one for a month, get the identity of who you paid, and use one of the apps to host a shell script that listens on one of the few public ports you have access to, that answers every incoming connection with “this is a seed box operated by ABC, with cards payments accepted by LMNOP Inc in Athens, Greece.”

But the most common usage is running packaged software they let you run (like BT clients you can remote-control, sickchill, radarr, sonarr, Plex, etc.) or remote desktops or shells. Usually implemented as docker containers.

I’m genuinely worried it’s yet another deliberate denial of service against our ability to detect evil. I work extra hard to only pay attention to what is actually done that seems like it could stick.

Mostly I trust that good people in positions of trust (e.g. ACLU or EFF) will call out when there’s an opportunity for mass mobilization to make a real difference.

They would enforce the rules of their payment card network. Once they’re aware of a violation they take action. If they become aware of a series of violations they take further action to ensure the merchant complies in the future.

I think I communicated part of this badly. My intent was to address “what is this speech?” classification, to make moderation scale better. I might have misunderstood you but I think you’re talking about a “who is speaking?” problem. That would be solved by something different.

I mentioned this in another comment, but we need to somehow move away from free form text. So here’s a super flawed makes-you-think idea to start the conversation:

Suppose you had an alternative kind of Lemmy instance where every post has to include both the post like normal and a “Simple English” summary of your own post. (Like, using only the “ten hundred most common words” Simple English) If your summary doesn’t match your text, that’s bannable. (It’s a hypothetical, just go with me on this.)

Now you have simple text you can search against, use automated moderation tools on, and run scripts against. If there’s a debate, code can follow the conversation and intervene if someone is being dishonest. If lots of users are saying the same thing, their statements can be merged to avoid duplicate effort. If someone is breaking the rules, rule enforcement can be automated.

Ok so obviously this idea as written can never work. (Though I love the idea of brand new users only being allowed to post in Simple English until they are allow-listed, to avoid spam, but that’s a different thing.) But the essence and meaning of a post can be represented in some way. Analyze things automatically with an LLM, make people diagram their sentences like English class, I don’t know.