https://lemmy.world/post/9826225

Well written, well said.

Education is the key.

It’s always odd when people stretch inclusivity to mean that absolutely everyone should be able to freely breeze past any and all possible barriers, with no effort.

Internet security, you guys. There has to be SOME minimum activity requirement, or this whole site would be swamped with an insane number of bots.

Nice strawman you got there. We’re talking about access to comments made by human beings.

In all forms of communication and commenting, moderation should happen to remove bots as much as possible.

How much easier does it need to be to join?

Apparently people are used to a single server source, and a federation of multiple servers seems to be a blocking point for them. /shrug

Meta is full on enshitification, why wouldn’t they bring a new form that we can’t predict over here?

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

What does Meta get out of this?

Would I be talking to the c-suite, or to regular people?

Edit: I get it, truly. You want to punish the corporation for bad behavior, and I definately agree with that sentiment; voting with your wallet.

But we are talking about excluding people from conversations, and not hurting the c-suite. Defederation hurts everybody else more than the c-suite. The 800 lb gorilla is already dancing in your living room.

Meta is full on enshitification, why wouldn’t they bring a new form that we can’t predict over here?

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

But the net isnt like that. People have just as much freedom creating a Threads account as they do a Lemmy or Mastodon account.

It’s not about creating an account or not, it’s about the conversations, who views them, how inclusive are they to all.

The people who would be making comments are not the same people that are running Meta.

And don’t say that the fediverse is too difficult to understand for the average person. That kind of rhetoric is what will push people away.

It is a barrier entry though for many (for whatever reasons). I don’t think you can just hand wave it away like that; that’s not constructive.

Everyone needs to be patient with growth. It’s not going to happen in a year just like it took years for reddit to grow.

The situation is different now, than back then with the starting of Reddit. This time you have a 800 pound gorilla dancing in your living room.

I do believe that more and more people will be interested in the fediverse once they realize that corporate oversight is non existent here.

Unfortunately the Fediverse account creation difficulty barrier of entry may be higher than avoiding corporate oversight. People take the path of least resistance usually. (And yes, it bums me out big time saying that, as we should all try to avoid corporate oversight.)

And that can only happen if we keep the major instances disconnected from Meta or any for profit company.

That’s not the only way though. Good moderation will also prevent that from happening.

–

So, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. Personally I would lean more towards not defederating, to be inclusive, as I’m just an 70s/80s liberal who believes free speech for all, and that it would do more harm than good by excluding a whole bunch of people from conversing with a whole other bunch of people.

Having said that, I do see good points being made on both sides, it’s not a clean decision to make, it’s not binary, it’s analog.

But it does seem to me like a lot of the comments being made on the subject are knee-jerk advocacy based, gatekeepingy.

This is true, but not generationally. Rather, the younger someone is, the less they generally know, and the more.opinions can be shaped.

You’re not wrong, but you’re also wrong. :p

What I mean is that normally, youth is less “wise” than elders, because of how long they’ve been alive. The more mileage you put into Life the more you figure out. Its one of the great ironies of the human species that just as we finally start to get wise enough to figure out WTF is really going on, we drop dead. And even worse, trying to pass off some of that wisdom to the previous generation usually falls on deaf ears, because its seen as ‘old person yells at clouds to get off of their lawn’ by the younger generation.

Having said that, I’m still going to disagree with you in that the original comment is specificially (IMO) targeting the newest generations as specific entities onto themselves, and not just more youthful; the first post-new Internet generation, as being less informed/aware.

If you’re trying to have a social media presence you are de facto targeting a younger audience

One does not beget the other though, its just a coincidence. The ‘de facto’ is targeting the dummer/spends more crowd, not a specific age crowd. If older generations were ‘dumb’ and spent more, they would be the ones targeted.

I mean, I wouldn’t use that language, but yeah of course. They don’t have firm beliefs yet, in most cases, and their worldviews are more likely to be shaped by memes, whereas the older generations adopt the memes that appeal to their worldview.

I don’t think it’s just about how memes are processed. I think they really consider them less aware, less intelligent, than older generations.

And I was pointing that out is a ‘rallying cry’ to the younger generations, that this is the level respect they’re getting, and that they should do something about it, hence the stronger language.

That seems counterintuitive to me in the context of modern AI approaches.

How so? Elaborate?

I’m wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit more.

This seems sufficiently explanatory to me, especially the italicized part…

AI can’t come up with enough believable unique names for all the posts they want their AI bots to make

Unbelievable usernames becomes an easy identifier/tag for identifying bot post.

Edit: since this comment got downvoted (as the assumed reply) I thought I would elaborate a bit more.

Basically, we name our user accounts to fit the society we live in’s norms, it’s naming conventions.

If you just run a bunch of vowels and consonants together, that does not make a username, at least not one that people will recognize as a valid one created by a human being.

Part of how bots are effective is in the quantity of bots that are used. Since it’s near zero cost to spin up a new bot to make posts/comments, many can be made.

However people can track the validity of a user name as being a bot versus human by the quantity of the posts/comments the username makes (only so many hours in a day, and human beings are busy with other things besides just posting on Lemmy), so no one single bot can make too many posts/comments at one time.

Because of this, you need a large quantity of unique names, one for each of your bots, and they have to be believable ones by humans, so they’re not identified as bots.

From the article…

The study’s demographic analysis further highlighted the targeted nature of corporate trolling. Younger users, particularly those aged 18–29, were significantly more likely to be contacted by corporate trolls, with 17% of them reporting such experiences, compared to only 7% of users aged 65 and over. This age-based discrepancy underscores the strategic approach of corporate trolls in engaging with a demographic that is often more susceptible to their influence.

Wow. Corporations are tagging younger generations as dumb shits. That is not cool.

Yeah, looks like the default “word_wordnumbers” usernames that reddit gives you if don’t change them.

Funny enough, this started happening on YouTube (comments) as well, around the same time.

The issue with sites starting to use numbering as part of the default username only started happening after AI posting became a thing, because an Achilles heel is the fact that AI can’t come up with enough believable unique names for all the posts they want their AI bots to make.

No, all bad online behavior now is “bots.”

At least that’s how people in the comments on lemmy and Reddit label them.

I, and others, have distinguish between shills and bots.

Usually people use shilling as an alternative to astroturfing by paid human beings, while bots are just AI/programming posting.

From my understanding trolling meant exactly what it says it is: Trolling. I think people for some reason get this mixed up with trolls - as in the fantasy type monster. But I think it actually has to do with the fishing termtrolling where you cast out your line, and see if you can get somebody to take the bait. Once they take the bait, you take em for a ride.

When the word is used on the Internet it’s meant in the fantasy monster way. Specifically it comes from the story of the troll underneath the bridge, interfering with people trying to cross the bridge.

polemic

po·lem·ic /pəˈlemik/ noun a speech or piece of writing expressing a strongly critical attack on or controversial opinion about someone or something. “his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties”

That number has got to be higher than 15%. Everywhere.

can think of both sides as good guys and bad guys.

One country invaded another country without (real) cause. That seems pretty clear-cut.

/whoosh

They’ve introduced a couple of redirects so that the snap version gets installed.

Chess is a really good game too

You have to play it in full screen mode though. When you play it windowed the wind keeps knocking the board over.