There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated. cover

I just wanted to confirm from our meeting just now, did you want me to (some crazy shit that could cause problems)?

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

mozz OP , avatar

Infinitely worse. It’s hard to calculate, but there were countries where they literally had single digit covid numbers during the pre vaccine days, just because they gave the situation the gravity and strictness it deserved

I have a family member who’s in the hospital right now, in a part of the country where practically no one including the hospital staff is wearing a mask. It’s hard to even find them in the hospital to put one on. There are rooms clearly marked with mask and droplet precautions on the outside of the door, and the staff will take a mask from a box next to the door, go inside to deal with that person, and then when they’re done they take their mask back off and go back to walking around treating patients with no mask. What do the people in those rooms have? I don’t know but I can confidently say the hospital is fucking up in a fashion that is actively killing some number of patients and that politics are involved in that.

I am constantly worrying whether Trump’s bullshit will wind up adding my family member, individually and personally, to that 1.5 million surplus deaths

mozz OP , avatar

Tell all that to my family member. Once he’s out of the hospital and not in danger of the exact procedures Trump pushed hard for giving him some kind of currently-life-threatening infection, we can rap about jurisdiction and industrial numbers.

Sure, it’s hard to be precise about the outcomes what some theoretical more competent administration might have done differently. But yes, Trump’s measures killed some number of people, and gave some number more disability that lasts to the present day. Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Like I say, once my family isn’t actively directly being endangered by the lasting after effects of his malicious policies, we can have a calm debate about it.

mozz OP , avatar

It is not an emotional argument to point out that the MAGA bullshit of people wearing masks or getting vaccines making them the enemy is purely a Trump-world invention, with aftereffects continuing to and beyond the present day. Same goes for that stuff being of a totally different and explicitly malicious kind than the simple errors that some government body might commit that was trying to address the crisis, instead of using it simply as another way to pursue its overt policy of going to war with all sensible people everywhere, in any way they could find.

And it happens that I have an example directly and personally relevant to me, but there are plenty of families all across the country who have the same. Quite a lot of them have lost family members. I know some of those families with dead members. It's not just an anecdote.

I think I've spent as long as I need to on this. If you want to say that Trump didn't kill a fuck of a lot of people, as a direct result of prioritizing his culture-war bullshit over literally saving lives (or that that killing of people more or less on purpose is not a problem), I don't know what to say to you.

mozz , (edited ) avatar

There was four years of Trump and nothing particularly bad happened.

Except that time a million and a half people died and literally the whole country had to stay inside collecting unemployment and washing our groceries while all of his followers got super amped up and violent because they weren’t (always) being allowed to make things worse

And that little bonus surprise at the end and how a sizable portion of the country including some important judges hates elections and anyone who makes them happen now

I mean there’s more but those are good starters

mozz , avatar

Is this some sort of trick question

mozz , avatar

I wonder if this is the very first time Kamala Harris has done any fundraising this election cycle, or if it’s just the world’s laziest attempt to put two “events” in confluence with each other in the headline so as to create a narrative and an excuse to write this week’s 500th story on this topic

Actually I admit I am not wondering that with any real uncertainty

mozz , avatar

Arguing gives them a chance to look useful and wise when they are not though

The Republicans are scary, talking about real strategy is hard and messy, and Biden is old and safe to attack

mozz , avatar

Dude fuck him

He tried to kill America. If he gets back in office he plans to put the axe to any secret service personnel who don’t get on board with the murder. Just tell him no, go fuck yourself, insurrectionists don’t get protection and favors provided by the systems they’re insurrectioning. Figure out your own fucking security and count your blessings that we’re leaving you alone to do that much until the courts get their act together hopefully.

Hijacking the systems that are intended to be used by people who aren’t enemies to the country, and everyone going along with it like everything’s normal, is a key way that fascists slip into the systems which they then use to do terrible things.

There is a time and a place for democratic norms. He should have a trial, he should have lawyers, he shouldn’t just get assassinated and the country explode into civil war. But don’t give him fucking secret service protection. Now, or if he wins, or after he’s inaugurated.

He is the enemy to the system.

The system better wake the fuck up and start treating him that way. All this inviting the wolf in the house and showing him where he can sleep in the fucking guest room and where the coffee is is how we got Hitler.

mozz , (edited ) avatar

I went into the office I now work at, greeted 2 coworkers I've already worked with, they looked at me, said nothing, kept talking to themselves.

How am I supposed to interpret that?

I think you should interpret it exactly how it sounds like

It may or may not be fair. Personally, with a very few exceptions, I dislike coworkers and want few interactions with them whether positive or negative. I just don't care. But regardless of that, your coworkers are there because they have to be, and if they've decided they don't want to interact with you and are now letting you know, that is their option, whether it's fair or not.

mozz , avatar

Startup in a rented house in a residential neighborhood

“Router” was an old PC running Linux with a few network cards, with no case, with a household fan pointed at it to keep it cool

Loose ethernet cables and little hubs everywhere

Every PC was its own thing and some people were turbo nerds. I had my Linux machine with its vertical monitor; there were many Windows machines, a couple Macs, servers and 2 scrounged Sun workstations also running Linux

No DHCP, pick your own IP and tell the IT guy, which was me, and we’ll set you up. I had a little list in my notebook.

It was great days my friends

We went out of business; no one was shocked

mozz , (edited ) avatar

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I turned in a time card once that had over 24 hours of work on it in a row. The boss was dating a stripper, and she would sometimes bring stripper friends to our parties and hangouts. We had ninja weapons in the office. The heat was shitty, so in the winter we had to use space heaters, but that would overload the house’s power which would cause a breaker to blow which obviously caused significant issues, so a lot of people would wear coats at their desks in the winter, but that obviously doesn’t do much for your typing fingers which was an issue. I frequently would sleep in the office on the couch (a couple of people were living in bedrooms in the upstairs of the house).

Like I say, it’s not surprising that we went out of business. It was definitely pretty fuckin memorable though. Those are just some of the stories or right-away memorable pieces off the top of my head.

mozz , avatar

I think I eventually did install a DHCP server with a high-up reserved range for it to allocate IP addresses out of. The main body of machines were still statically configured, though, because we needed them on static IPs and I couldn't really get dhcpd to get it right consistently after a not too long amount of trying.

mozz , avatar

I want you to guess what is the answer to this question

mozz , (edited ) avatar

, I heard that you can blacklist words

How about instead of that, we let you know every single time that it’s fucking tiresome and please give it a rest

Or would that mean you would be hearing that statement oppressively many times?

The moderation of this community has entirely lost the plot

Same article 10 times a day and a literally limitless stream of the same 5-6 bad faith arguments in the comments to back it up? Sure sounds good


We need room for more stories about the Ithaca dogcatcher who is now saying that Biden should step down

mozz , avatar

The #1 upvoted comment in this thread is one of your users saying they're tired of being carpet-bombed with these articles. Saying "Please stop." I feel pretty much the exact same way. Isn't that relevant? The existence of the articles on this newsworthy topic isn't the issue, of course, just their incredible volume and frequency and the laziness of the "new" features of the situation that are then graced with a whole new cycle of stories.

I looked over the articles in /m/[email protected] specifically, and it actually doesn't look like there's any particular excessive coverage of it here -- so maybe criticizing moderation in this sub specifically because of it is unfair, yeah. I think it's more a statement about the flood of various article restating the exact same thing with some minor reframing, in Lemmy as a whole. And yes, I feel exactly the same way about the ridiculously front-and-center coverage it's been getting in a lot of mainstream media outlets, frequently framed in ways that are explicitly opposed to the factual reality (he's dropping in the polls!) and almost always framed towards one particular conclusion.

mozz , avatar

The disinformation problem

mozz , avatar

There are two issues that make me offended to see this stuff in such a volume:

  1. It's dishonest. It consistently constructs, out of individual data points that are accurate, an overall reality that doesn't exist. It went seamlessly from "Biden's support TANKS after the debate", then when polls showed him dropping 2-3 percentage points and most and sometimes not by that much, to simply claiming his polls were tanking when they weren't, to then suddenly pivoting to claiming that something else was the issue when he pulled back to where he had been or ahead of it. Now it's reporting an avalanching drumbeat of increasing numbers of people calling for him to drop out, always with headlines that create the perception that it's a growing inevitable crowd and that him dropping out is already a given, and he's just holding out before he will inevitably crumble.

Read the headlines. They are constructing through artful phrasing a consistent picture of a snowballing lack of support for Biden, with the facts to underlie it purely invented, by subtle dodges like asking Democrats and Republicans alike whether he should drop out and then reporting the (fairly high) resulting number, instead of just reporting the delta in his support numbers. Or, by taking one local chapter of a national union who wants him to drop out as a "major union" that wants him to drop out, not mentioning that the vast majority of unions want him to stay in.

Here's a selection of headlines from /m/[email protected], one contiguous chunk I grabbed to illustrate the problem:

  • Majority of Democrats think Kamala Harris would make a good president, AP-NORC poll shows (asking a misleading question so you can report the answer you want to highlight in the headline)
  • Joe Biden faces increasing pressure to quit the race, but has spent a lifetime overcoming the odds (fact-free editorial amplifying the framing)
  • Biden feels angry and betrayed by top Dems as family discusses ‘possible’ plan to drop out (I skimmed the sources and couldn't find any particular backing for the statement that he feels angry or betrayed, although for all I know he may well do)
  • Larry Hogan blasts Project 2025 as a ‘dangerous path’ for GOP (news)
  • Biden's family starts discussing his possible exit plan from the 2024 race (story seems perfectly reasonable but being framed to create the perception that his resolve is buckling and he may exit soon, it's a done deal -- I see no backing at all for the idea that these conversations "started" recently. I have to assume he's talked about backing out of the race before, and they're just purely inventing the idea that the conversations "started" recently just to create the framing).

Like I say, that's not necessarily this sub or your problem. And maybe it all sounds thin skinned on my part. But also, I can't see how you can't see that as a problem, if your sub meant to inform people about what's going on is being subjected to propaganda on a big scale.

Which brings us to:

  1. It never stops. It's seeking to overwhelm any alternate narrative by sheer volume of repetition. It would be absurd for me to counter each and every "here's a new person who wants Biden to drop out!" story by finding a "here's the 99% of unions that don't want him to drop out!" story to counterbalance it.

It is, to me, engineering a certain public perception, not reporting on the world as it exists. There's a perfectly legitimate conversation to be had about what the Democrats should do and whether Biden should stay in. But phrasing the conversation with one side of it amplified by constant repetition in every single forum, with the facts twisted up pretty much as far as they can go to support that conclusion, seems dishonest. No?

How that impacts moderation, or what rule might make it difficult to do, I have no idea. I'm just reporting what I see in terms of the result and how it's harming people's ability to understand the world when they read the news they find on Lemmy.

mozz , avatar

I made a reply here.

mozz , avatar

That’s a pretty indirect way of saying that you want me to shut up and not speak. I plan to continue tho

mozz , avatar


Nobody will say they lost $49 trillion if stock go down next week

They cannot get $49 trillion out of the market by selling all their stocks

It's just a weird misleading framing

mozz , avatar

Honestly? If you’re still on Twitter at this point, that’s on you.

mozz , avatar


The whole fucking front page is already filled up with this stuff


mozz , avatar

Yeah I’ll get right on that

mozz , (edited ) avatar

idk why it went to cyrllic

What a mystery. We better get the fuckin Pinkertons on that one

mozz , avatar

Wait, is this the guy who’s been writing those shit articles for the Guardian also? That would be pretty interesting if so.

mozz , avatar

I’m telling you, I’m getting right on it. Any day now. When I check it out, you’ll be the first to know.

mozz , avatar


First to know, dude. I’ll let you know STRAIGHT away.

mozz , (edited ) avatar

SMTP is designed with queues and retries

Unless something has changed massively since I was deeply involved with this stuff, the people that sent you email may get a notification after some hours that their message is being delayed, and maybe after like 24-48 hours they might get a bounce. But if it’s just your SMTP server going down for an hour or two every now and then, the system should be able handle that seamlessly (barring some hiccups like messages showing up with timestamps hours in the past which sometimes is confusing).

mozz , (edited ) avatar

I think 8 hours starts to get into territory where they might get an informational message about the delay? That also starts to be long enough that the emails might get lost in the distant past in the client and never be seen, by the time they arrive.

I think when I used to do this, it was one advisory message every 24 hours that a message was holding in the queue, and after 5 days it would bounce, but I have to assume that those limits have shrunk in the modern day. How much, IDK; it might be worth experimenting with it though before committing to creating that situation since it might not go okay.

mozz , avatar

What the fuck

I came in here to talk about police brutality and the NYPD; I did not expect to see Biden’s name come into it when the NYPD is borderline brownshirts and hates the fuck out of Biden and doesn’t seem inclined to accept instructions about how much brutality to do from anybody much less a stinkin’ Democrat

But sure. Biden’s action on law enforcement has mostly been to make small but sensible reforms to federal law enforcement (one, two).

If you want more police reform, a good place to start would be supporting efforts in congress to do the same in other police jurisdictions, as opposed to (as is tradition) blaming the whole thing on Biden and Biden only and doing everything possible to swing the election to his opponent who is 18 times worse on the issue.

mozz , avatar

I wish it was easier to see what is going on from the data they show 😕

NYPD is in my opinion on one of the worst tiers of police agencies in the country, and so it wouldn’t surprise me if they are still very bad. But it’s hard to tell one way or another from this article.

It would be nice to see e.g. a breakdown of all fatal interactions with police, and all interactions that led to a use-of-force complaint, what the categories were in terms of:

  • What % they refused to give body cam footage
  • What % our use of force expert said it was ok
  • What % our expert said it was debatable
  • What % our expert said the cops were very clearly abusive

Just reporting numbers like, how many complaints were there, or how many people did the police shoot whether or not it was needed, isn’t real enlightening

mozz , (edited ) avatar

He’s made them a requirement for federal cops, which are the ones under his control, and also stopped some policies (transferring military equipment to local police) that were actively a bad thing for local departments.

His budgets included, along with increased funding, a good amount of funding for programs for non-police intervention and other things the ACLU thought were good ideas. I can’t find the ACLU page that explains their whole mixed review - because it also includes their criticism for the stuff you’re talking about - but even being a hawk for the police in general, he’s been doing some amount of lefty stuff as well, not just talking about it.

mozz , avatar

What's actually going on is a little bit more subtle, I think.

The people supporting him mostly don't know he's a rapist. They don't know he wants to throw his opponents in prison or kill them. All they see is this incredible opposition to him from people they know, and it just confuses them, because the news they consume doesn't tell them any of that. And so, they don't know what the big deal is, and so they just don't talk about it and plan to vote for Trump sort of quietly.

And, human nature being what it is, if it does come up in conversation, everyone talking to this guy assumes the underlying picture in everyone else's head is equal to the picture in their own, and so of course this person is already aware that Trump's a criminal rapist treasonous shitbag who's dumber than rocks, and just supports him anyway, and so they react with arguing and hostility instead of doing the much harder work of building a shared understanding and engaging in a dialogue that they know isn't going to resolve into anyone's mind changing on the first day.

It's easy to decide that someone's fully aware of the facts and they're just a huge piece of shit with how they reach judgements off the same facts you have, and you need to yell at them. That's rarely how it works though (although, sometimes, yes.) The much more difficult and more successful path is to understand where they're coming from and how they got to their wrong judgement, and try to work with them to help understand things better even if they're being hostile or what they currently think is wrong as hell.

This is my opinion on it

Does one have to be an iconoclast or revolutionary these days to be validly left? I consider myself to be left of center, and very much in favor of progressive policies.

However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it....

mozz , (edited ) avatar

Here’s a fun exercise: Ask queermunist what they think of some left wing issue that isn’t something that would be a good talking point for an outside adversary of the left to use to destabilize it, or make it lose.

They’re very vocal about wanting the left to use violence. They’re very vocal about wanting people not to vote for Biden. Foreign policy in Central and South America? Justice for farm workers? Prison reform? Fuck all that shit, let’s talk about some guns.

Idk, now that I have given the game away they may have a different reaction. 🙂 But that was my experience when I asked about it, and I made from that an inference about them and some other parts of the Lemmy left that may form a good potential answer to the original question you were asking.

mozz , avatar

This was literally a conversation I had with queermunist (I am almost sure; it was a while ago but I am fairly confident that was the other participant when I had the exchange). I’m just filling OP in on the content and recommending they try to experiment themselves, because I think it’s an extremely relevant contribution to OP’s understanding of the answer to their question.


Dude I am King Smug; it is 100% fair

manipulative bullshit

Not really

mozz , avatar

Get outta here with your detailed informative answers

We’re supposed to be having a big partisan argument about who is the poopy head in this sandbox

mozz , avatar

Yeah that was how the person reacted when I asked it that other time, too. Like HOW DARE YOU ASK ME ABOUT MY BELIEFS, THAT IS A DIRTY TRICK

I found it very notable, too, that perfectly normal reaction. Not like “why is Central America relevant to this lol” but “how dare you”

mozz , avatar

I would be extremely surprised if joking about assassinating Biden was kosher with any of the mods

mozz , avatar

You’re not wrong, but not normalizing political assassinations is about quite a bit more than “decorum”

This is like saying “well this guy is doing date rapes so I don’t see why I can’t joke about raping his sister”

The answer is 0 assassinations. The answer is the rule of law. I actually 100% agree with you that most of the political left has its head in the sand about the urgency of coming to grips with what the right wants to do and stopping it, but “let’s go ahead and have the civil war then, what’s the worst that could ensue” is about the worst possible take and strategy that you could employ in response

mozz , avatar

Who the FUCK is downvoting this

Dragging the whole US down into a landscape where political assassination is acceptable is exactly the right’s goal. As soon as it’s normalized even a little bit, that little tail which currently has a handful of right-wing nuts with pipe bombs and hammers who is actually acting on it is gonna grow to encompass a huge, MASSIVE number of Facebook uncles

And then I can guarantee that all the people who are celebrating this will no longer be celebrating

mozz , avatar

Like I say, you're not wrong on that; I only really said anything because of the topic where it's being discussed and the implication to this event.

Somewhere between tone policing, and approving of the assassination of your opponents, the truth lies.

mozz , avatar

Your idea that the violence will wind up mainly directed against anyone other than the politicians working for good outcomes, and vulnerable ordinary people both in and out of the US, is unfounded.

mozz , (edited ) avatar

I feel like this is one of those “output only, no input” conversations

I am suggesting that the people who will be “terrified” and “fear for their lives” will be working people trying to organize a better future, and politicians (such of them that even exist) that are aligned with working people. And that the people working on behalf of the shareholders will be A-ok, mostly speaking, because they’ll be the ones whose followers are doing most of the politician-shooting, and have plenty of money to organize good security for themselves.

You can read “How Democracies Die” or “On Tyranny” for a lot more in depth characterization of how it often plays out historically speaking. I get what you’re saying but I think it is a comically rosy picture of how violent revolutions against oppressive political movements turn out in reality.

mozz , avatar

Random political violence by the right just happened

The idea that that can be consistently relied upon to aim also at the right, and productive of some useful political output in terms of justice for working people, is what I am saying is unfounded

mozz , avatar

Trump embodies fascism on an instinctive bedrock level. By the time he saw the democracy, he was already a man, and it was nothing to him but stupid.

It’s unlikely that the person that replaces him will be as spiritually aligned with fascism. On the other hand, just like with Hitler, Trump’s pure stupidity and laziness is the one bright spot in what would otherwise be an unbroken landscape of horror that we’re currently driving into.

I think replacing him, atop the machinery that’s been created at this point, with someone who really knew what to do with it and could apply themselves to getting it done, would be probably the worst catastrophe possible out a set of possible futures that doesn’t have any shortage of catastrophes.

mozz , avatar

This is more of a theory than anything I’ve tried in practice, but I think “go ugly early” might be good advice in moderation as it is in marathons. If someone’s being a dickbag just get rid of them. Temp ban for dickbaggery, perm ban for consistent or unrepentant dickbaggery.

It seems like a lot of the mods try to dress it up in this elaborate system of rules and procedures like they’re only implementing the will of the great magnet, and they have no personal stake in anything. Just ban the dicks and people will either agree with your judgement on it or they won’t. But it seems, just from my observations, like trying to dress it up in a fig leaf of impartiality doesn’t really fool anybody.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines