geekwithsoul

I agree. In terms of the .world mods and some of the specific cases you mentioned, I think at least part of the problem is that they are often looking at stuff at a per-comment or per-post basis and sometimes missing more holistic issues.

My guess is that a good portion of that comes down to the quality and breadth (or lack thereof) of the Lemmy built-in moderation tools. Combined with volunteer moderation and a presidential election year in the US, and I’m sure the moderation load is close to overwhelming and they don’t really have the tools they need to be more sophisticated or efficient about it. Generally I’ve actually been impressed with a lot of the work they do, though there have been obvious missteps too.

Everyone talks about Lemmy needing to grow in terms of users and activity, but without better moderation tools and likely some core framework changes, I think that would be a disaster. We have all the same complexities of some place like Reddit, but with the addition of different instances all with different rules, etc (not to mention different approaches to moderation).

Good points. I also think the fediverse and Lemmy, in particular, could be attractive to certain bad actors in terms of misinformation and astroturfing, and vote manipulation would certainly help with that. I think some people think we’re safer here from that because of smaller size, etc. - but I think Lemmy users are more likely to be willing to engage (as we wouldn’t be here without willing to take leave of places like Reddit), and influencing the conversations on Lemmy could be a significant boost to someone looking to share misinformation or make a difference in very tight elections.

On the whole, I think that’s one of the reasons Lemmy needs better built-in moderation tools than what might otherwise be thought appropriate based on its size. And an overall maturity of the platform to protect against that kind of manipulation.

Yeah, the ratio of upvotes to comments looks a little unusual IMO

I’ve heard it used that way - basically taken to mean “It’s over that way in a straight line” but then usually followed by directions on how to get there via a twisty route because there’s no direct path there.

A capitalism casino that somehow rules the entire economy*

* or at least many people’s view of it

This shows so many gross misconceptions and with such utter conviction, I’m not even sure where to start. And as you seem to have decided you like to get free stuff that is the result of AI trained off the work of others without them receiving any compensation, nothing I say will likely change your opinion because you have an emotional stake in not acknowledging the problems of AI.

I inherited brain structures that are natural language processors. As well as the ability to understand and repeat any language sounds. Over time, my brain focused in on only the language sounds I heard the most and through trial and repetition learned how to understand and make those sounds.

AI - as it currently exists - is essentially a babbling infant with none of the structures necessary to do anything more than repeat sounds back without understanding any of them. Anyone who tells you different is selling you something.

Hopefully not too pedantic, but no one is “teaching” AI anything. They’re just feeding it data in the hopes that it can learn probabilities for certain types of output. It “understands” neither the Reddit post nor the scientific paper.

<waves at likely a fellow genealogist!> :)

Actually in most places it was however the person wished to be listed and often included full first names and sometimes middle initials. Or could sometimes be a couple like “John and Mary Doe”

You know, I think a good rule of thumb is if someone finds humiliation “funny”, they’re generally kind of an asshole. Even if everyone is in on the “joke”, it’s revealing of a certain kind of mindset.

But that’s the whole point - the source linked in the original post is deemed to be reliable by their own determined tool. So why is a mod nitpicking the text within the linked article? It’s either a reputable source or not. They kept stuff from the New York Times about the Oct 6 attacks even though that didn’t have good sources, and they throw out anything from Fox News even if it’s factually correct.

The mod made a mistake and didn’t seem to realize that the Ukrainian Pravda (legit, privately owner, reliable) is different from Russian Pravda (owned by Russian Communist Party, propaganda) - and keeps coming up with excuses why he did what he did. It’s sad

Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse:

Official Ministry of Defence page with the same numbers:

https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2024/09/24/the-estimated-combat-losses-of-russians-over-the-last-day-1400-persons-61-artillery-systems-3-anti-aircraft-systems/

“Data are being updated.”

Obviously a rough English translation and more precisely should probably be “Data subject to change” or “Data continues to be collected”.

Just like any military stats are reported across the world.

That’s why they should be falling back on the reputable sources as shown by their own MBFC bot instead of playing backseat journalist and questioning individual sources within an article.

Dude, really? Did you not see the links I provided from the official Ministry of Defense site or the verified Facebook account? The other news sites providing the same information?

At this point you seem to only be arguing in bad faith because you don’t want to admit you couldn’t tell the difference between Russian Pravda and the Ukrainian Pravda. That was the only thing mentioned in your comment on the removed post, and everything since then has seemingly been posturing.

This is so disappointing - I’ve been a vocal proponent of the job you mods are doing and supportive of your efforts to use what tools you have to help with a difficult job, and you’re just being completely unreasonable about this.

Yeah, thought the same. That’s partly why I bothered to try and explain what was going on - it seemed out of character.

Honestly, I still think he saw “Pravda” and thought it was the state-run Russian Pravda and made his decision off that - and has been rationalizing all that ever since rather than admit a mistake. Look at what he commented on the deleted post:

Source: https://old.lemmy.world/post/20121671

Yeah, especially since they linked to the post in the article and you could see it was a legit verified account belonging to the Ukrainian General Forces. They did exactly what any good journalist should do.

My biggest problem is the mod is now seemingly reviewing news article sources personally. If an article’s source is judged to be generally very reliable by their own MBFC bot’s source, then a post linking to that source shouldn’t be removed citing that sources unreliability.

Honestly, I still think he saw “Pravda” and thought it was the state-run Russian Pravda and made his decision off that - and has been rationalizing all that ever since rather than admit a mistake. Look at what he commented on the deleted post:

Source: https://old.lemmy.world/post/20121671

That’s a strawman. We’re not talking about comments. We’re talking about why you removed a post from a reputable source. You’ve said because it was 1) from Pravda (apparently not realizing all Pravda’s are not the same); and 2) because the article used a FB post as a source.

Just to do a baseline reset here - can we agree that the news article linked to was from a news organization that is generally regarded as reliable, including by the MBFC source your own bot uses? And can we agree that the Facebook post linked to was from the official and verified account of the Ukrainian forces? And that it matches both their website data and other verified social media posts?

Also, Newsweek instead linked a Twitter post of the Ukrainian Forces https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-russian-troop-losses-peak-levels-1958439

And MSN didn’t even bother linking to a source at all. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russia-s-losses-in-ukraine-as-of-september-24-1-400-troops-and-61-artillery-systems/ar-AA1r6qtq

All told, it would seem like the source linked to in the post was the most authoritative available.