IIRC it spammed websites with traffic, didn’t conceal your IP at all, and some people got arrested for using it to make some websites go down for a very brief period. Basically a way to use people who didn’t know what they were doing as cannon fodder

Having an edgy opinion

I support and agree with the concept of free speech and the 1st (though this topic isn’t really specifically about the US). But a culture of tolerance is important for free expression, which isn’t really about overwhelming the “wrong” perspectives with mob rule. Downvoting all the vegan memes to make sure they don’t forget people disagree with them isn’t what I would describe as truth and leadership.

Could you elaborate? Does HOA mean something different in other countries?

Home owner’s association; when you buy a house and it is part of a HOA, you have to sign a contract to join the HOA as a requirement of buying, which means you have to pay dues and abide by the rules of the organization, and you have to require the next buyer to also join in order to sell your house.

It sounds as if you’re describing something like a low moderation politics focused imageboard. I would say you are getting it backwards; untrue racist conspiracy theories win out in such an environment, which mostly does not select for good ideas, because the “marketplace” isn’t about which arguments are good or anything like that, it’s about shaming and demoralizing those who disagree, appealing to people’s emotions, and projecting an impression of community consensus through high volume shitposting. Despite that there may not be direct removal of comments, such an environment effectively selects against minority (at least within that space) viewpoints by making it extremely unpleasant for anyone trying to express them, and by making sure it will at least seem like there are a larger number of people mocking them.

Needless to say, there are some problems with this way of doing it, and it’s worth considering ways to not be like that.

Do you think the “cost” of “being in a society” is accommodating the mainstream consensus view? I’m not vegan but I figure if they want to have an echo chamber that isn’t all about reacting to my objections and the objections of most other non-vegans to their ideology, that’s fine, it’s not a “cost”, I am not entitled to or being “paid” through such reactions, and I have zero tangible stake (pun intended) in their dietary choices. That abstraction doesn’t work, it’s not about paying your dues, rather it is an organizational question about how much Lemmy should function to homogenize opinions or to shield minority opinions from adversarial social proof.

While I personally value space for debate and disagreement, I also think spaces for minority views can’t really exist if they are just going to be overwhelmed by volume, and they should be enabled to exist lest everyone devolve into regurgitating a reddit hivemind sort of mentality.

Because what they want is more likely to stop people with values incompatible with their group interacting with it, while still being visible enough that people who may have compatible values could become aware of it.

Maybe the way they go about pursuing that causes a mild annoyance for many other people, but I think it’s a legitimate thing to want.

IMO this is mainly only a problem because Lemmy is small enough that everyone is browsing all and there’s no realistic natural separation of users. Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.

Also recently got banned from c/imageai for downvoting “too much”?

My guess is it’s because there are a bunch of people who hate AI in general, and they want votes to instead reflect which images people like or don’t like for what they are instead of every post having a negative score.

this will force us humans to go actually outside, make friends, form deep social relationship, and build lasting, resilient communities

There is no chance it goes that way, how is talking to people outside even an option for someone used to just being on the internet? Even if the content gets worse, the basic mechanisms to keep people scrolling still function, while the physical and social infrastructure necessary for in person community building is nonexistent.

I doubt the school administrators who would be buying this thing or the people trying to make money off it have really thought that far ahead or care whether or not it does that, but it would definitely be one of its main effects.

The pair said it was a major relief that the calamity came after version 4.0 of Godot was released in March of 2023. That version, they felt, was most ready for a sudden rush of new developers.

Sounds like they saw it coming for a long time and successfully prepared for it

From the article it sounds like a mostly psychological thing, like they have been so conditioned to do what they are told that bosses can bully/shame them into staying even after saying they quit.

IMO for some people arguing is a form of intimacy

I wonder if part of the reason for supporting this is that they like the secondary effect that all this information is now also available to governments

Can’t track mouse movements on mobile though

Quality of journalism isn’t a binary based on whether it is propagandizing for the correct side.

I don’t think it works that way, it can be at different places on the scale. The other OP headlines are worse than the NYT one because they directly imply the “pre-emptive” claim is true, as opposed to indirectly implying it by choosing to reference the perspective of the IDF.

One relevant detail is that this was not a self contained device, it was for monitoring likelihood of seizures and had an external wireless interface. So my guess (this is pure speculation) on what happened is, the company owned the monitoring device, and the signals from the in-brain device were proprietary and encrypted. They couldn’t force her to have surgery but they could take back the external interface which was their property, and without that the in-brain device did nothing. Then the patient agreed to surgery because there was no further benefit to keeping it in her head and probably greater health risks to doing so.