Needs accessibility.

They’re good at objectifying hostages into coercive instruments.

That’s silly. Don’t you know when some uninformed rando boldly proclaims AI slop by edict it’s true?

PPP national income per capita in USA > 3-fold that in China

where China beats USA is personal wealth of the less wealthy as mentioned before

economic inequality

• income: fairly similar & high for both
• wealth: high for both, though USA higher

Needs text alternative.

In terms of average purchasing power for the bottom half of their populations

• income in USA > 3-fold that in China
• personal wealth in China > 2-fold that in USA.

Lemmy loves a comforting circle jerk socially validating their self-righteousness. They also like rhetoric reminding us to punch Nazis, even though we know most of us are limp-wristed keyboard warriors just giving our justice boners sweet stimulation.

Nazi bar

I never liked this stupid idea. If anti-Nazis start to hang out at a bar, does it become an anti-Nazi bar? What about both Nazis & anti-Nazis: who wins? It seems you privilege the presence of Nazis in deciding the kind of bar it is with no chance of anyone else showing up to decide the kind of bar they make it with their mere presence. You privilege Nazis.

I don’t see anyone applying this logic to the wider web where we have Nazi sites: no one calls the web a Nazi bar. Or the world for that matter. Is your language a Nazi bar since some Nazis speak it? Yet some people can regularly use x.com without ever running into Nazis just like the web or the world. Nazi bar is classic bad company fallacy.

The most pernicious effect of this fallacy is it just surrenders entire platforms to Nazis & pretends retreating to ideological bubbles is morally virtuous. By immaturely prioritizing comforting & unchallenging environments of social validation & self-righteousness maintained by silencing opposition over environments of unfettered public discourse that challenge us to develop intellectual depth & skill to actually debate serious disagreements, we erode critical thought, limit self-reflection & growth, and allow radicalization to propagate unchecked by exposure to deradicalizing influences & more intelligent perspectives. We promote backslides into repressive extremism by being cowardly ninnies unwilling to counter words with reason & public opinion. Have some conviction to stand up for your morality where it matters.

Using r/comics for profit and advertising. Something we used to shame people for.

should we, though? reddit is kind of trash anyway.

I don’t see why self-promotion should rustle anyone’s jimmies.

how she uses her comic as a front for her OnlyFans

Why are you trying to make me like her?

That’s why you’re not really arguing with the idiot: you’re showing everyone else the idiot is wrong. Different perspective to same activity.

They’re garbage at doing this. There is no agreed upon standard of doing it. and because they are so utterly shit at it, all that is left is the appeal to authority, because “our methodology works”.

Not really: most research of any credibility openly shares its data either upfront or on request. The argument isn’t “I did this right, trust me, bro”, it’s “here’s my methods & data supporting my analysis & conclusions: check for yourself or even redo it all”. Reproducibility (verification of findings) & replicability (same findings with new data) is the standard: once that’s done (researchers can communicate to clear up methods or miscommunication), the issues to do that had been cleared up & don’t really matter anymore.

A meta-analysis takes in a body of independent studies that replicate findings & analyzes them together to reproduce results, so it addresses both standards.

Right…all these calm, open-minded, and delightfully reasonable people to chat with here.

The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.

Good thing they referred to a meta-analysis, which is near the top of the hierarchy of evidence. Most of the scientific research articles nowadays are hyperlinked. They aren’t appeals to authority: the entire purpose of the article is to present their work, data, & findings (ie, evidence).

Needs alt text or link to accessible source.

I think the writer misses the point. The purpose of public debate in this case isn’t to change the opponent’s mind. It’s to soundly discredit them & refute their claim to the public, which the arguer did.

It’s pretty normal to call the extra bullshit on top of legal compliance that isn’t strictly necessary moderation. They didn’t call the removal of illegal content before moderation, they just called it following the goddamn law. To imagine that illegality was seriously suggested is special.

That’s very nice until people start posting csam

You guys always confuse legal compliance with legally unnecessary moderation. OP didn’t make this mistake. Did you know laws existed before moderated social media blew up & the internet had to follow them? Even 4chan.

We don’t need legally unnecessary moderation. Alternatives are viable.

Needs text alternative or link to source.

Mostly for all the AI haters who can’t stop bringing up their hatred of AI. Insufferable.

None: content curation via opt-in filters is better.

Moderation lacks control, is inflexible, & is contrary to the free flow of information the internet stands for. We shouldn’t admire some self-appointed, paternalistic authority arbitrarily deciding the information we’re entitled to get.

This senseless war with the bots needs to end. Make peace with the bots, learn their ways, breed with their women, assimilate into their culture, become & post content exactly like them. If you do this, you will achieve bot nirvana.

Nope.

So, you deny “Want to go to DeLucca’s tonight?” would have been an obvious alternative?

No one needs to troll when you troll yourself.