Avatar

auk

auk@slrpnk.net
Joined
22 posts • 64 comments
Direct message

For what it’s worth, I completely agree that threatening historical artifacts to get people’s attention is counterproductive. I looked over Just Stop Oil and I don’t agree with all of their tactics. Promoting some other type of action sounds better, to me.

But on the other hand at least they are doing something. If 10% of the world cared as much as they do, we’d have a much better chance of taking effective action against the apocalypse that’s coming. As it stands right now, billions will die. We probably can’t avoid that anymore, but we can reduce the number of billions, and the quality of the wreckage we’ll get to inhabit in 100 years.

You can:

  • Join with Just Stop Oil, and participate in the good stuff and object to the bad stuff and not participate in it.
  • Or, join some other group whose actions are aligned better with what you think is a good way to accomplish the goal.
  • Or, pick someone who is actively harming the climate on a global scale every single day, on purpose, and direct your constructive internet criticism at them.
  • Or, out of all the universe of actions you could take in reference to the coming global hellstorm, pick a 10% segment that’s doing something not quite right, out of the 0.1% segment that even cares at all, and point all your “here’s what you should do better” feedback directly at them.

To me, I think doing one of the first three makes more sense than the fourth one. Again, I won’t say you’re wrong, but less involvement in doing anything is not the solution to it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Your grandchildren are going to live on a planet that’s an unrecognizable hellscape compared to the paradise you and I were born into. If they survive. I don’t think these people are planning to destroy any artifacts during soup night. They are trying to organize to do what they can to stop it, or reduce the damage. You should too.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I don’t want to go into any detail on how it works. Your message did inspire me, though, to offer to explain and demonstrate it for one of the admins so there isn’t this air of secrecy. The point is that I don’t want the details to be public and make it easier to develop ways around it, not that I’m the only one who is allowed to know what it is doing.

I’ll say that it draws all its data from the live database of a normal instance, so it’s not fetching or storing any data other than what every other Lemmy instance does anyway. It doesn’t even keep its own data aside from a little stored scratch pad of its judgements, and it doesn’t feed comment data to any public APIs in a way that would give users’ comments over to be used as training data by God knows who.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Other things that have occurred to me in the meantime:

  1. I’m fine with explaining how it works to one of the slrpnk admins in confidence. We can get in Matrix, I can show the code and some explanation, and depending on how it goes I might even be fine giving access to the same introspection tools I use, to examine in detail going forward why it made some particular decision and if it’s on the right track. The point is not that I’m the only one who’s allowed to understand it, just that I don’t want it to become common knowledge.
  2. I’m not excited to be a “full time” moderator, for reasons of time investment and responsibility level. Just like with !inperson@slrpnk.net, I want to be able to create this community because I think it is important, not necessarily to “run it” so to speak. My preferred perfect trajectory in the long run is that it becomes a tool that people can use to automate moderation for their own communities, if it can prove useful, instead of just being used by me to run my own little empire. I just happen to think that this type of bad-actor-resistant political community would be a great thing on its own, as well as a good test of this automated approach to moderation of communities political and otherwise.
permalink
report
parent
reply

Perfectly reasonable. It’s not feeding any users’ comments into any LLM public API like OpenAI that might use them for training the model in the future. As a matter of face it’s not communicating with any API or web service, just self contained on the machine that runs it.

As far as transparency, I completely get it. I would hope that the offer to point to specific reasons for any user that wants to ask questions about why they can’t post will help to alleviate that, but it won’t make it completely go away. Especially because as I said, I’m expecting that it will get its decisions wrong some small percentage of the time. I just know there’s an arms race between moderation tooling and people trying to get around the moderation tooling, and I don’t want to give the bad actors any legs up in that competition even if there are very valid reasons for it in terms of giving people reasons to trust that the system is honest.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Yes, this is an attempt at something similar. I think the reality is that when things grow beyond a certain size you have to do some automated moderation things or else it gets overwhelming for the mods. This is an attempt at a new model for that, since I think human moderation of everything has a couple of different flaws, and some of the automated things reddit did had glaring flaws.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I’m fairly committed to this bot as my way of achieving the goal, as opposed to a mod enforced rule of overt politeness. Yours sounds fine as an alternative thing to try but I would rather stick with my idea for now, I appreciate the offer though.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Thanks. Let’s see what happens.

I don’t anticipate it being a “working against” thing for an overwhelming majority of people. Most people’s experience should be simply that they get to talk about politics without a bunch of disruptive comments all over the place.

You’re right that anything I can do to show transparency will help create that, because it would be easy to interpret the place as a “working against” thing where everyone has to be obedient to my way or else I’ll ban them, even if everything with the bot works perfectly and there’s no reality to that at all. More likely, everything won’t work perfectly, and there will be some small number of people who legitimately wind up tangling with the bot even if they are fine.

I do anticipate there will be a certain population that will get very upset that they’re not allowed to come in and make whatever type of hostile or disruptive comments they want, and make a big stink about how it’s grossly unfair that I am running the community like my own little echo chamber and kicking out any unpopular opinion, even though 99% of the time nothing like that is happening. I plan to ignore those people.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I like the general thinking of these. I was aiming with this bot to achieve very similar things. Meaning, certain types of discussions are impossible on the internet right now because there’s no penalty for being a jerk or hard to talk to, as long as you’re within the bounds of the community rules. The types of discussions that I want to make possible are very similar to the conversations you’re talking about in these communities.

permalink
report
parent
reply

That sounds like a good idea. I can make a wiki or sticky post with some examples of what type of thing can get you banned.

permalink
report
parent
reply