Lemmy naturally concentrates unconnected users with similar interests thanks to reddit-style communities. Mastodon follows the Twitter style where you have to find and follow individual users to get their microblog content, and its harder to isolate certain topics or interests except across the entire service via hashtags. Individual users on their own are very uninteresting and bland.
Lemmy has fewer users but they as a whole generate more active content than Mastodon does thanks to community specialization, since the Twitter style posts require some critical mass of users following to generate interesting discussion (something that basically never happens unless you’re already a celebrity)
To add to this, on Lemmy I often find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with a user depending on the topic and community. It adds a layer of additional context and nuance to that user. If I was just to follow the user vs. community, however, I may get the impression that the user is not worth following if I happen to run across them on a topic that we have disagreements on.
I’ve had times where i’ll have a negative interaction with someone on lemmy and see them later in another thread and they’re cool again. On Mastodon if you have a single bad experience you’ve probably already blocked each other and that chance to reconcile never comes up again.
Is there a source for these haughty, cackling archeologists making fun of hairdressers or is that just to manufacture some kind of underdog victory scenario?
a haughty, cackling asshole ignoring a woman’s expertise
Boy howdy, that’s a spot-on description. Never listened to him because I expected it to be trash; but I didn’t realize the situation was so dire
Motherfucker leans into sensationalism and shock-value, because he’ll be forgotten as soon as he shuts the fuck up—and of course he won’t have any useful skills to hold a job with real value afterward. Fucking cowardly shits, afraid to work on something of substance when the fame/infamy runs dry
So yeah, it indeed made my blood boil a little lol. Wish I could say it was mostly pity for him being so… dumb? But nah, that’s a person acting like garbage and should be treated as such (until proven otherwise)
To be fair, while I haven’t listened to a ton of Rogan, that’s easily the most openly vile thing I’ve heard from him. And it’s not from his show, he’s a guest on some call in show. It’s also an older clip.
Usually his schtick is a lot more subtle, “I’m just asking questions, I’m just open to hearing all sides, I just happen to platform Nazis and never push back on their opinions because I’m so open, also I think trans people are evil”
Worked security at a factory that made kitchen appliances. It wasn’t his first day, but it was his first shift by himself.
There’s a gate at the front that you lock when you go on rounds.
Dude chooses to go on a round 5 minutes before shift change for the factory workers. He gets a call on company cell that folks are at the gate. Instead of coming back, he tells them to wait 20 minutes so he can finish his round.
20 minutes where they won’t be getting paid.
Second in command big boss of the factory is out there checking IDs and directing traffic when dude gets back from his round. Now this dude is nice. Genuinely one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet. Old union rep, shirt off his back type. Tells guard not to worry about it, all’s good. Just time his rounds better next time.
Guard starts screaming at him about how he had no right to undo the lock, to get out of here, he’ll handle them, and if he wants to make them wait that’s his right. Boss man tells him to chill out, he won’t get in trouble, just go do his log and then he can take over checking IDs.
Guard pulls out, in one hand, a mag light flashlight he was told not to have, and in the other chemical spray that’s illegal for a guard to carry without certs (which he didn’t have), and this is an unarmed site. Threatens to ““arrest”” him. When boss pulls out his cell to call the guard company, the guard sprayed him and knocked his cell onto the ground, and kicked it across the parking lot, breaking it.
Needless to say, he was fired. Boss didn’t press assault charges, but we nearly lost the contract.
Not just mall cops, it’s just people in general in any position of power. When I was young I used to host game servers for a community I created and liked to have a decent amount of people to administrate them and keep the games fun for everyone. There were people playing for months and always seemed reasonable and level headed and I’d see if they would be interested and most jumped at the chance to be more involved in the community. Every once in awhile though those reasonable and level headed individuals once they got some measure of authority went absolutely crazy and there’s no indication of who it would be. People can be the exact opposite too, they clown around taking nothing seriously always trying to push boundaries, but then you give them some responsibility and suddenly they are the most responsible person you’ve ever met, they just needed a chance to show it.
Depending on the state, security guards do have some power. In Tennessee, guards can be bonded, which effectively makes them cops.
In Virginia, security guards have powers of arrest, so they’re not cops, but can legally arrest and detail you, to include handcuffing and up to lethal force in certain situations.
But to your larger point, it’s a power trip. I worked security for 10 years. Most guards do not give a fuck, they don’t want to do anything more than the bare minimum, and will passively just sit there while people steal and shit.
But occasionally you get a power tripper. Someone who went into security because they couldn’t hack being a real cop, so they decided to become a rent-a-pig. This is usually seen in people 60+ or under 25.
Voyager has a setting to show a baby emoji next to the name of a user if their account is less than a month old and an account age. Probably one of the best features I’ve ever seen for immediately recognizing troll accounts.
For now, because Lemmy is relatively new. There’s a reason many bot farms run accounts that are unassuming, “normal” people. Accounts that are established have value. They can then sell those accounts to another group who needs to sew discord. The older Lemmy is, the less useful the new account icon will be.
I find at least one commenter with a new account on almost every post with more than 5 comments.
They tend to be negative.
Think I’m going to start welcoming them to Lemmy, note their activity to date, and ask them nicely what might have brought them to join. (If they are real, glad to have them, but I have found most Lemmy members came here from Reddit, not to make accounts to post in News or Politics or such places trolls would like.)
Until Lemmy updates to identify new accounts ala Voyager, I think that would be helpful to inform other users they may be talking to a troll.
There are approximately 433k accounts but only 48k Monthly Active Users.
It’s hard to believe that many of posts and comments are often the newest accounts, and though they will change tactics to using older accounts, at least it’s more work for them.
So, now that you spend half your time on Lemmy being a narc, have you considered moving on to actually contributing meaningful comments and content, or are you content with just being a stool-pigeon that harasses new users?
(Checks your comment history)
Ah, so just the same comment over and over again for weeks on end. Fucking spammer…
Hey look, a new very active account, talking shit about… Hmmm…
Nazis, trump, cops, Russians, gays, etc!
Yeah, people like you are why I point it out new accounts.
And from the way you communicate rudely here, to me for saying “Welcome” to new members, illustrates a great point that you don’t seem to be someone worth talking to, likely by anyone.
Have a great day, and looking forward to Welcoming your next alt.
A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink.
“I have to admit, I’m always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up,” the CIA agent says.
“Thank you,” the KGB says. “We do our best but truly, it’s nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them.”
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. “Thank you friend, but you must be confused… There’s no propaganda in America.”
Not disagreeing per se, but for sites like Twitter and its clones, you go where the people you care about are. I have a mastodon account but I couldn’t tell you the last time I opened it because nobody I follow is there, and I don’t really care about following general topics or hashtags.
As opposed to a site like Reddit, the content is what matters, and I can get that content anywhere (RSS feeds, blogs, here, etc)
It seems so weird though. The fediverse is small. Extremely small. They are taking on Twitter. A million users on mastodon doesn’t matter when Twitter has 250 million.
Agreed. All this reminds me a little of some of the discussions that inevitably appear in professional-photographer circles whenever some online service with photo-sharing features changes its terms and conditions. Everyone is convinced that the giant multinational company is spending millions in a laser-focused effort to steal business from photographers, because “making money with photographs” is the lens through which they view the world. And from that point of view it’s hard to see that the entire industry of professional photography is too tiny to be worth Google’s or Meta’s time to even try to steal.
And weirdly, a lot of startups have the goal of being bought out by a mega-corporation in a couple of years and live off of that money.
Which does make sense. Most people work to make a living and what a better plan is there than to make something that someone pays a ton of money for and stop working. Or after that do something that you want instead of have to.
If their reaction is this strong even though fediverse is this small, it means we have something incredible and should fight for it and prevent coporations from gaining ANY influence over it. I doubt we will get any more chances if we blow this one.
I agree that fediverse is only a few million. But the fediverse is also highly populated with refugees from twitter and reddit at the moment, who just want another stable and popular social platform similar to what they’ve always used.
If anything, the fediverse will have people with stronger opinions: either they’re willing to change social media because of a couple bad changes (and aren’t too attached to the fediverse), or they’re hardcore fediverse fans who are less likely to move to threads than your average twitter user.
If we assume it to be a 50% split, then meta has a chance at stealing half the fediverse by promising a larger user base, thus more content, but on the false premise that Threads will be backwards compatible with the fediverse forever.
Holy shit thanks for the link. That’s a very good write up explaining why we should be very wary of Meta’s intents. And the wiki page link was gold. Fuckers truly want to Embrace and Extinguish.
I remember that. So the question begs how does the current federated ecosystem stay away from that? Never trust any company if they say they want to work together?
The research was paid for by someone. It is not unheard of for a company to offer a grant under the condition that they get the results, say, six months before the rest of the world.
This the the case for publically funded research as well. Scientific journals have paper submitted for free, papers reviewed for free, then they charge the $35/article fee to anyone who reads it, or more generally, they charge universities/etcs in the 5 to 6 figures sum/year for unlimited access.
Scientific journals are a billion dollar industry who do literally nothing for that money. They limit scientific progress to make money, and thats it.
If they review papers for “free” is that not worth something?
I definitely don’t think it should be for profit but it seems like there is value and costs to what they do. That money has to come from somewhere.
EDIT: I am unfamiliar with the process so I took OP’s words at face value. Several others indicate this is inaccurate. So, seems like all they do it host/publish the papers. Which does cost money, but that just seems like something that should be funded by other means rather than users paying. Kinda weird to hide science behind an arbitrary paywall.
The journals dont review anything. Other scientists do the reviews for free. Scientific prominence is a key to promotion for scientists, so they publish and review to keep and advance their jobs. Journals were built to abuse this fact.
Scientists publish papers for free, other scientists reviews papers for free, journals charge billions/yr to publish this free work, now mostly in digital formats, a medium that is effectivly free when serving text files.
Scientific journals are a racket, bar none. There are attempts to open source the publishing of these journals, but often if you publish in an open source one, the for profit journals will not accept the piece.
AFAIK, peer reviewers are typically other academics in the field (peers) that are asked to voluntarily review a given article. The publisher doesn’t pay peer reviewers.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is the reviews are done by other academics for free, if at all… That’s why getting published is kind of reputation based and circular because the cheapest review is just to look up whether they’ve been published before.
You misunderstood. The journals get the papers submitted for free (i.e. they don’t pay the authors) and reviewed for free (i.e. they don’t pay the reviewers).
I have been the referee for two articles at an academic journal. It said in their agreement that for three or more papers per year you’d be compensated this and that much. But I guess I misunderstood because they emailed me and asked to pay me for just the two reviews. Anyhow, it basically no money. The time you put in to do a proper review is a lot more than what you are compensated for. Your uni still pays your salary, so this is just a bonus, but still, very little. This journal is hosted by a public entity, private ones may be very different.
tbf the confusion is not so much that the author would be allowed to but that they’d want to. people would naturally assume that like with many things people put time into creating, such as novels and video games and whatever else, that the fee required to access it is desired by the author and in some way benefits them.
I work in a technical field, and the amount of bad work I see is way higher than you’d think. There are companies without anyone competent to do what they claim to do. Astonishingly, they make money at it and frequently don’t get caught. Sometimes they have to hire someone like me to fix their bad work when they do cause themselves actual problems, but that’s much less expensive than hiring qualified people in the first place. That’s probably where we’re headed with ais, and honestly it won’t be much different than things are now, except for the horrible dystopian nature of replacing people with machines. As time goes on they’ll get fed the corrections competent people make to their output and the number of competent people necessary will shrink and shrink, till the work product is good enough that they don’t care to get it corrected. Then there won’t be anyone getting paid to do the job, and because of ais black box nature we will completely lose the knowledge to perform the job in the first place.
Since turning 30 I’ve been thinking about the half-your-age-plus-seven rule a lot more. It would feel creepy as fuck to date a 22 year old. Is this all in my head? It feels predatory to swipe right on anyone younger than 25
You realize that that “rule” is based on absolutely nothing, right? It’s just arbitrary nonsense that people who are terrified of disorder impose on themselves because rules give them a pleasant secure feeling even when the rule ridiculous :-D
‘creepy’ is a feeling. and like all feelings it is entirely in the eye of the beholder. ‘predatory’ is stupid fear-mongering bullshit. Certain TV personalities made tons of money scaring the fuck out of parents, and they did it by using the vivid violent imagery of vacuous metaphors like ‘predator’
People in their 20s are perfectly capable adults. They are not harmed by consensual sex with people older than them. There is not a shred of evidence that folks over 30 are somehow dangerous or have magic brainwashing powers that they use for evil :-D
So, yes, it’s all in your head. Your culture has taught you to fear something that is 100% harmless on every level.
i appreciate the message but what is that ui design???
the floating hearts that go over the text. the neon pink background. the fact that this serious pact is in all lowercase (i know im typing in all lowercase, but i think the fedipact is different from an internet forum). the weird text animation for hyperlinks that makes it unreadable for a second. this does not lead to any reasonable credibility
That is what nonconformity looks like. The internet of old looked similar to this. Nowadays, everything has ample whitespace, and is boringly styled, and ads everywhere.
I mean with boring that every website looks the same, perhaps a splash of color but thats it. And even that isn’t a guarantee for accessibility or readability. This pink website is perfectly valid and accessible.
I’m pretty sure that Chrome’s alternative is designed by Google to track you in a way that’s harder to block and gives them more control over the advertising market by forcing advertisers to play along and use their method instead of collecting your data directly. Sure, it’s more private, but it’s still tracking you.
Firefox, on the other hand, is focusing on completely blocking cross-site tracking. They have no incentive to completely block 3rd party cookies as long as there is also a legitimate use case for them, but I guess they will eventually also block them if Chrome is successful in forcing websites to stop relying on them for core functionality.
Not sure how Chrome’s alternatives for providing relevant ads are harder to block when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it’s collected) in the settings. These systems are what Chrome is able to do at the moment to work towards blocking third party cookies. They do have an incentive to make something that they know works well for them though, I’ll give you that.
As a relative layman I also have the same question. If you can turn it off, what makes it so bad?
I’m not saying I trust Google, of course. It just seems like they have a vested interest in screwing over third party advertisers and making them more dependent on Google. If you can then disable the Google part, isn’t it a net benefit?
(I don’t use chrome and am not familiar with this change, so I may be missing something)
Strictly speaking, it’s an improvement over the current situation where you are tracked across the web to come up with a profile of your interests which is then used to deliver targeted advertising. The interest-based advertising is the end goal, it’s where Google makes its money. Google doesn’t necessarily need your data or to track you across the web to do that. I think people are unhappy that it doesn’t go far enough and just want either no targeted advertising or no advertising at all. Removing the ability to target ads would result in more ads being needed to make up for lower quality placements, which I believe would lead to increased ad blocker usage and an advertising death spiral. News sites are already almost practically unusable on mobile without blocking ads for example. Having no advertising means getting revenue another way such as paywalls and subscriptions.
With the Topics API, your browser will keep track of your history and provide sites with a limited number of topics (1 per week). Instead of being an opaque system on an ad provider’s server, you can examine and modify the topics being used in your browser or even look at the source code of the feature in the browser itself. With the Protected Audience API, the ad bidding process can occur in the browser as well instead of on a remote server. These features can be turned off.
There is definitely some concern that they’re screwing over third-party advertisers which is why their pages come with stuff like:
subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Regardless, Chrome ditching third-party cookies means that websites can no longer rely on them and must adapt their sites to function without them. This will mean that Firefox’s Total Cookie Protection should work better and they can remove third-party cookies in the future instead of having to create workarounds.
when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it’s collected) in the settings
Is that part of the chromium engine which is open source or is it closed source ? Because if that part of the code is not visible it doesn’t matter what Google tells you.
Theoretically they could still inject malicious code even if the stuff in the chromium source code looks fine. Given they got sued for their servers still tracking you while Chrome was in Incognito mode (even with the warning every time you open Incognito mode), I’d imagine any injection of code like that would result in another lawsuit (or several). At some point you either have to trust that Google is implementing things how they say they are in the code that they put out or just use a different browser.
I checked your link but as most people I’m not programmer, so we can’t check or even remotely understand what Google engineers does. On the other hand, what common people can understand is 'follow the money ́. Google makes most of its money on selling personalized ads, the more data they get on you the higher advertiser will bid.
It would make absolutely no sense, financially, for Google to reduce it’s tracking ability and let the user decide which ad they want to see or not.
And at the end Google is a business, money goes in, more money goes out. They could be doing what they claim to do right now, only to change in 2 years when all third party advertiser are bankrupt because they can’t use cookies anymore. That’s another possibility.
The way I see it, Google knows that changes are coming to the advertising industry, either through regulations or just public opinion. By doing this now, they can try to get ahead of those changes/criticisms while controlling what systems their advertising competitors will have to operate under. I don’t doubt that Google will still have enough data to do relevant advertising, either with the data from these new systems in the browser or the first-party data they have on people through their sites.
Lemmy is a selfhosted, federated social link aggregation and discussion forum. It consists of many different communities which are focused on different topics. Users can post text, links or images and discuss it with others. Voting helps to bring the most interesting items to the top. There are strong moderation tools to keep out spam and trolls. All this is completely free and open, not controlled by any company. This means that there is no advertising, tracking, or secret algorithms.
I asked this question ages ago and it was pointed out that “sub” isn’t a reddit specific term. It’s been short for “subforum” since the first BBSes, so it’s basically a ubiquitous internet term.
“Sub” works because everybody already knows what you mean and it’s the word you intuitively reach for.
You can call them “communities” if you want, but it’s longer and can’t easily be shortened.
kbin.life
Top