Danterious

joined 2 years ago
[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Curating this volume of content is impossible, and there are legitimate dangers in giving the government too much ability to shut down free speech

Agreed. We have already given more than enough control to the government in other areas of our lives. We now have alternative social platforms that give us a chance to actually have more direct control over our media landscape which hasn't been true in such a long time.

you have to build a society that doesn’t want to engage with bigotry, and explore and question its own assumptions (and that’s not ever a fixed state, it’s an ongoing process).

I think this is what they were trying to get across when they mention media ecology. They were pointing out how the structure of where media is shared and its sources can be more important for quashing disinformation than the actual content itself.

So when something is shared through YouTube there are certain pressures that over time mold the source of information into a specific format.

I'd say the same is true of the Fediverse as well. That's why its important we get the structure here right because it will determine what kind of platform this place turns into.

Edit: grammar

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah there has also been an increase in the amount of companies either making FLOSS work more closed off or just not caring about them if it benefits their bottom line.

Unrelated I like your new profile pic.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago

It shows me 93 comments and 2 posts for me. It probably just hasn't federated to your instance yet.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah it is totally valid. Actually just came across someone that was talking about something similar to this.

https://youtu.be/S1ypWcqnojM

Edit: The main idea was that we as humans tend to get trapped in something called progress traps where as we advance technology we use that advance to over exploit our environment leading us to more problems down the line.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Also THUNK. Not necessarily that close to what is on your list but I like his takes on philosophical takes on a bunch of technical fields.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Thx for the feedback. If I was to try this what do you think I could do get black rather than brown dye? Would I have to use flowers that are closer to cyan, magenta, and yellow so it is closer to the cmyk color model or does that not help?

Also yeah idk if the contrast problem could be solved.

Trying to do say three layers would then take six hours, so whatever you’re using as a mask has to be super absorbent or reflective to UV (think very thick black paper or tinfoil). Anything else, and your underlying layers are going to bleach somewhat.

Do I need to do it in multiple layers? Also I was planning on trying to use the paper as a replacement for photo paper in pinhole photography with it instead of a mask.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Primitive Technology. Heard of this through lemmy. Pretty nice overall. No talking but you can follow along through the subtitles.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The point is to pick out the users that only like to pick fights or start trouble, and don’t have a lot that they do other than that, which is a significant number. You can see some of them in these comments.

Ok then that makes sense on why you chose these specific mechanics for how it works. Does that mean hostile but popular comments in the wrong communities would have a pass though?

For example let's assume that most people on Lemmy love cars (probably not the case but lets go with it) and there are a few commenters that consistently shows up in the !fuck_cars@lemmy.ml or !fuckcars@lemmy.world community to show why everyone in that community is wrong. Or vice a versa

Since most people scroll all it could be the case that those comments get elevated and comments from people that community is supposed to be for get downvoted.

I mean its not that much of a deal now because most values are shared across Lemmy but I can already see that starting to shift a bit.

I was reminded of this meme a bit

Initially, I was looking at the bot as its own entity with its own opinions, but I realized that it’s not doing anything more than detecting the will of the community with as good a fidelity as I can achieve.

Yeah that's the main benefit I see that would come from this bot. Especially if it is just given in the form of suggestions, it is still human judgements that are making most of the judgement calls, and the way it makes decisions are transparent (like the appeal community you suggested).

I still think that instead of the bot considering all of Lemmy as one community it would be better if moderators can provide focus for it because there are differences in values between instances and communities that I think should reflect in the moderation decisions that are taken.

However if you aren't planning on developing that side of it more I think you could probably still let the other moderators that want to test the bot see notifications from it anytime it has a suggestion for a community user ban (edit: for clarification) as a test run. Good luck.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

But in general, one reason I really like the idea is that it’s getting away from one individual making decisions about what is and isn’t toxic and outsourcing it more to the community at large and how they feel about it, which feels more fair.

Yeah that does sound useful it is just that there are some communities where it isn't necessarily clear who is a jerk and who has a controversial minority opinion. For example how do you think the bot would've handled the vegan community debacle that happened. There were a lot of trusted users who were not necessarily on the side of vegans and it could've made those communities revert back to a norm of what users think to be good and bad.

I think giving people some insight into how it works, and ability to play with the settings, so to speak, so they feel confident that it’s on their side instead of being a black box, is a really good idea. I tried some things along those lines, but I didn’t get very far along.

If you'd want I can help with that. Like you said it sounds like a good way of decentralizing moderation so that we have less problems with power tripping moderators and more transparent decisions. I just want it so that communities can keep their specific values while easing their moderation burden.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

 

I saw this and thought this would be useful in noticing and analyzing trends across the web and fediverse in specific. Which could help with noticing and finding disinformation.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/24292479

Abstract:

Although hundreds of dialogue programs geared towards conflict resolution are offered every year, there have been few scientific studies of their effectiveness.

Across 2 studies we examined the effect of controlled, dyadic interactions on attitudes towards the ‘other’ in members of groups involved in ideological conflict. Study 1 involved Mexican immigrants and White Americans in Arizona, and Study 2 involved Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Cross-group dyads interacted via video and text in a brief, structured, face-to-face exchange: one person was assigned to write about the difficulties of life in their society (‘perspective-giving’), and the second person was assigned to accurately summarize the statement of the first person (‘perspective-taking’).

Positive changes in attitudes towards the outgroup were greater for Mexican immigrants and Palestinians after perspective-giving and for White Americans and Israelis after perspective-taking. For Palestinians, perspective-giving to an Israeli effectively changed attitudes towards Israelis, while a control condition in which they wrote an essay on the same topic without interacting had no effect on attitudes, illustrating the critical role of being heard.

Thus, the effects of dialogue for conflict resolution depend on an interaction between dialogue condition and participants' group membership, which may reflect power asymmetries.

 

Abstract:

Although hundreds of dialogue programs geared towards conflict resolution are offered every year, there have been few scientific studies of their effectiveness.

Across 2 studies we examined the effect of controlled, dyadic interactions on attitudes towards the ‘other’ in members of groups involved in ideological conflict. Study 1 involved Mexican immigrants and White Americans in Arizona, and Study 2 involved Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Cross-group dyads interacted via video and text in a brief, structured, face-to-face exchange: one person was assigned to write about the difficulties of life in their society (‘perspective-giving’), and the second person was assigned to accurately summarize the statement of the first person (‘perspective-taking’).

Positive changes in attitudes towards the outgroup were greater for Mexican immigrants and Palestinians after perspective-giving and for White Americans and Israelis after perspective-taking. For Palestinians, perspective-giving to an Israeli effectively changed attitudes towards Israelis, while a control condition in which they wrote an essay on the same topic without interacting had no effect on attitudes, illustrating the critical role of being heard.

Thus, the effects of dialogue for conflict resolution depend on an interaction between dialogue condition and participants' group membership, which may reflect power asymmetries.

22
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/linux@lemmy.ml
 

I recently downloaded linux mint and I wanted use a live wallpaper so I found out I can do that with hidamari.

I've downloaded from the software package manager but it doesn't launch when I click launch.

What am I doing wrong?

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

13
Brexit, Trump and the Ultimatum Game (jamesallworth.medium.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@beehaw.org
 

Found this article from 2016 and thought that it is actually a good theory of where we are now as a society.

The rest are my thoughts on this:

The ultimatum game is an experiment a dealer has a 100$ and they are able to offer you any split of the money they like and keep the rest for themselves. If you reject the offer no one gets any money. It has been shown that after increasingly unfair offers people tend to reject the offer even though it isn't a rational move.

People seem to be in a place where they see the benefits of society are unequally distributed and are becoming more willing to throw out the whole system even if it comes at huge cost to them.

We are seeing the same thing with what is happening in New Caledonia with the riots or with even with just people moving off established social media.

It seems like level of awfulness that makes people willing to just say fuck it all is different for everyone but with more occurrences of this happening I do think we are reaching a tipping point on a global scale.

This is actually a part of the reason why I believe countries are starting to regulate social media is so that people aren't reminded of these problems as often.

For example China recently made a law that is going to repress showing wealth on social media. So this is an attempt to hide the problem instead of actually facing it.

This is also related to the US election. Rationally people should choose Biden over Trump but according to the polls it seems like it being the "rational" choice isn't enough.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

 

Idk why I'm mentioning it but compared to a lot of other online platforms where if religion is being mentioned outside of a religious community it is really in your face on Lemmy it seems like when it is mentioned outside of that kind of community it seems relevant to whatever they are saying and are generally nice.

Its a nice change of pace.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/19547690

After reading this thread I had the question on whether it is possible to verify you have certain information without revealing who you are to others.

view more: ‹ prev next ›