lmmarsano
@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
- Comment on lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month 5 hours ago:
That’s a pleasant idea: best ways on going about that?
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 1 day ago:
Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information.
The law doesn’t magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open.
If discussion from the public is closed, then it’s no longer social media.
ban people who share false information
Banning people doesn’t stop falsehoods. It’s a broken solution promoting a false assurance.
Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed.
Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify.
If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible
Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want.
Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren’t claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 1 day ago:
That it’s irresponsible to sell a false bill of goods: a company sincere about not giving a fuck & that merely puts out an advisory is more credible than one that entertains illusions that fact-checking all social media isn’t a foolish endeavor. We don’t get that in reality, so why should we pretend we can get that online? Ultimately, the burden & responsibility to work out the truth is & has always been with the individual, and it’s irresponsible to pretend we can sever or transfer that responsibility, especially in an open medium like the town square, social media, or general reality.
There’s also the intractable problem of settling the truth. Why should anyone trust a company or anyone to be arbiter of truth? Infallible authorities don’t exist & they are inevitably going to get this wrong & draw wild conclusions like that pro-palestinian protests are antisemitic & need to be censored. While they could merely place notes/comments of fallible, researched opinions, we already get that with discussions like in real life.
Social media isn’t a controlled publication like an encyclopedia or news agency that chooses its writers & staff. It’s a communication platform open to the public.
Instead of promoting a false sense of confidence that lowers people’s guard with assurances no one can deliver, it’s better to cut the pretense, admit there is no real solutions, and remind everyone the obvious—unreliable information from anyone is untrustworthy, so they need to grow up, verify their information, and keep their guard up.
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 2 days ago:
Doesn’t reminding users not to be so gullible address that?
A problem is promoting unrealistic expectations that untrustworthy information is reliable because someone else will unerringly determine the truth & catch falsehoods from spreading. Claiming that ever made sense is bogus.
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 5 days ago:
I’d rather “trust” a company that keeps it real with notices like
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.to remind the user that trusting noncredible information from unreliable sources is a ridiculous concept.
- Comment on Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe 6 days ago:
Oh noes: a private company that has no duty to challenge falsehoods has given up any pretense of giving a fuck.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
Police ethical standards are practically nonexistent in the US. Deception of juveniles & the intellectually disabled is permitted in most states to obtain court-admissible confessions, and police are trained to obtain confessions that way.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
They’re junk pseudoscience as stated in introductory textbooks on psychology & by the National Academy of Sciences & American Psychological Association. Law enforcement keeps them not for their scientific validity, but as an interrogation tactic for people who don’t know better.
- Comment on T-Mobile secretly records iPhone screens and claims it's being helpful. 6 days ago:
Most likely written by AI
Are comments like this most likely written by AI? Am I AI?
philosoraptor - Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
image of text that people with accessibility needs can’t read
very bad
- Comment on YSK that in 16 States in the USA has banned Ranked-Choice voting, including 5 that has just banned it in 2025, and 6 of those bans happened in 2024. 2 weeks ago:
Yea I think they’re gonna freak out upon seeing this ballot.
I think you missed the first sentence I wrote:
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods.
Maybe explaining what you think that means would clear up confusion?
- Comment on YSK that in 16 States in the USA has banned Ranked-Choice voting, including 5 that has just banned it in 2025, and 6 of those bans happened in 2024. 2 weeks ago:
The ballot is the same for all ranked voting methods. The method of determining winner from those ballots varies, and some are clearly worse.
For instance, if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then shouldn’t a decent method always select that candidate as winner? RCV doesn’t do that. Other methods also fail.
This nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties. I don’t think it hurts to make a more informed decision before backing a method that will be difficult to change. We got stuck with FPTP through inadequate research, and it’d be great not to repeat that mistake.
While rated voting methods fail the Condorcet winner criterion, by rating instead of ranking candidates they satisfy another set of criteria also worth considering.
- Comment on How the Signal Knockoff App TeleMessage Got Hacked in 20 Minutes 2 weeks ago:
I don’t continue reading
Seems like willful illiteracy & incomplete evidence fallacy. There was literally all the resources on the internet & a quick search to check hastily drawn conclusions before posting them.
- Comment on What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments? 2 weeks ago:
Fallacy accusations.
No one needs to waste their time with someone else’s invalid reasoning.
Some of them being also kind of subjective.
Logicians & philosophers would disagree. Fallacies clarify identifying common reasoning errors & save effort overexplaining clearly documented problems.
Was this a valid example or was it a strawman?
Strawman means claiming to refute an argument by instead refuting a misrepresentation of it. Unclear how a question about examples would arise there unless the definition wasn’t understood.
- Comment on What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments? 2 weeks ago:
Appeal to fallacies
I’ve seen people here misuse this claim. An argument from fallacy is a claim that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is false because of the fallacy.
Claiming an argument is invalid (therefore not worth serious consideration until corrected) due to fallacy is not an instance.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
OP felt a compulsion to protect our virgin eyes & ears.
- Comment on We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then. 3 weeks ago:
Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not)
Objectively, the planets sometimes align, too: the odds are highly against it.
it provides no protection from criminal charges
Also exceedingly rare: we’ve only seen any decent prosecution recently. It’s likely to fail.
While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people’s lives hell.
- Comment on We'll have plenty of camps to have them sent to by then. 3 weeks ago:
I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated
Anyone who’s hasn’t lived under a rock the past decade knows clearly established means practical impunity.
Some courts have required an extraordinarily precise match between the misconduct alleged in one case and in a prior one in order to find a violation of someone’s constitutional rights.
[…]
When Baxter sued, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his case. It held that while it was well established that a police dog couldn’t be unleashed on a suspect who was lying down, there was no case addressing someone sitting down with their hands up, as Baxter said he was doing.
From Reason
“I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence,” writes Thomas. “Because our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition.”
The judge spoke to a point that qualified immunity critics have been making for some time: The framework was concocted by the Supreme Court in spite of court precedent. It’s a perfect example of legislating from the bench—something conservatives typically oppose.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, otherwise known as Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, explicitly grants you the ability to sue public officials who trample on your constitutional rights. The high court tinkered with that idea in Pierson v. Ray (1967), carving out an exemption for officials who violated your rights in “good faith.” Thus, qualified immunity was born.
That doctrine ballooned to something much larger in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), when the Supreme Court scrubbed the “good faith” exception in favor of the “clearly established” standard, a rule that has become almost impossible to satisfy. Now, public officials cannot be held liable for bad behavior if a near-identical situation has not been outlined and condemned in previous case law.
Though the original idea was to protect public servants from vacuous lawsuits, the practical effects have been alarming. As I wrote last week:
In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff’s deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child’s friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.
In other words, cops need the judiciary to tell them explicitly that stealing is wrong. The aforementioned police officers were thus shielded from legal accountability, leaving the plaintiffs with no recourse to seek damages for medical bills or stolen assets.
Court standards are so strict, nearly any meaningless, incidental difference suffices to grant officials cover of qualified immunity: literally the difference between lying down & sitting is all it takes to violate rights with impunity.
- Comment on Windows Is Adding AI Agents That Can Change Your Settings 3 weeks ago:
registry and gpedit
They’re still around and the various configuration technologies tap into them.
Most of us are pissed that all of those methods half work or are depreciating away for no reason other than some UIx twat couldn’t be bothered to hook something properly so they just reskin an element and misplaced half the functions.
Pretty much the case here, too. It mostly works, and the parts that don’t are super annoying & require ad hoc script-fu.
it blows my mind why this has not been resolved
Yep, configuring Microsoft has sucked incredibly hard compared to free OSs. Managing plain text configuration files in
/etc&~/.configis refreshingly nice compared to the bolt-on weirdness hidden behind various interfaces in Windows. It’s cute getting an error to contact your administrator when you’re the administrator.Attention in that area is extremely late & overdue, so I was happy to see something like
configuration.dsc.yaml.I see AI mostly as an assistant whose work I review. I might give it a fully written text, tell it to clean up my clunky language, then review it. Or I might ask it to provide some answers with references & review those references.
AI won’t fix broken foundations.
I’m sure we can ride out 11 on 10 … right?
I try to avoid Windows altogether if I can & confine it to less serious work.
- Comment on Windows Is Adding AI Agents That Can Change Your Settings 3 weeks ago:
What if we had all these configuration knobs & switches controlled by a configuration file, and to replicate the configuration, we could just share the file? Maybe we could call it declarative configuration management?
That already exists (partially) & could be developed further?
- Comment on Facebook Allegedly Detected When Teen Girls Deleted Selfies So It Could Serve Them Beauty Ads 4 weeks ago:
Centralized social media is an advertisement platform that targets advertisements according to information & conduct users feed the platform, and some of those users are teenagers?
They’re advertising to teenagers unlike ever before in the history of teen-centric media?
- Comment on Saint > Pope 4 weeks ago:
Which is why I think it was all on purpose.
Occam/Hanlon’s razor: it’s stupidity with opportunistic grift.
Project 2025 had pro- & anti-tariff proposals (they were split on the issue of fair vs free trade & argued both). This administration is running wild with the pro-tariff proposal, which ties tariff imbalances to trade deficits (seen this theme before?).
While the fair trade camp argued higher tariffs would somehow create jobs, the free trade camp called for realism & skepticism
trade policy has limited capabilities and is vulnerable to mission creep and regulatory capture
will fail for the same reason that a hammer cannot turn a screw: It is the wrong tool for the job. Conservatives should be similarly skeptical of recent attempts on the Right to use progressive trade policy to punish political opponents, remake manufacturing, or accomplish other objectives for which it is not suited. The next Administration needs to end the mission creep that has all but taken over trade policy in recent years.
countered that no trade policy (fair or free) creates jobs
Neither free trade nor protectionism will create jobs. Trade affects the types of jobs people have, but it has no long-run effect on the number of jobs. Labor force size is tied to population size more than anything else.
and argues more inline with textbook economics about trade, comparative advantage, specialization.
Interestingly, the free trade camp gave a brief history lesson about the interconnectedness of the economy from its agrarian beginnings
In 1776, nearly 90 percent of Americans were farmers. For 10 people to eat, nine had to farm. That meant fewer people could be factory workers, doctors, or teachers, or even live in cities, because they were needed on the farm. Accordingly, life expectancy was around 40 years, and literacy was 13 percent.
through the loss of jobs from agriculture to industry increasing the output of both
Many displaced farm laborers got jobs making the very farm equipment that made intensive agricultural growth possible, from railroad networks to cotton gins. Each fed the other. Agriculture and industry are not separate; they are as interconnected as everything else in the economy. None of this could have happened had the government enacted policies to preserve full agricultural employment.
to argue that jobs in a particular sector are the wrong measure of value
economic policy should treat value as value, whether it is created on a farm, in a factory, or in an office. A dollar of value created in manufacturing is neither more nor less valuable than a dollar of value created in agriculture or services.
growth increased as service sector surpassed manufacturing
Farmers’ share of the population continued to decline through this entire period, yet employment remained high, and the economy continued to grow. Factories were not the only beneficiaries of agriculture’s productivity boom and the labor it freed; services also grew. In fact, service-sector employment surpassed manufacturing employment around 1890—far earlier than most people realize.
economic decline based on manufacturing is a myth that disregards the big picture
In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.
trade leads to specialization that affects the types of jobs, not long-term employment level
The data do not show American economic carnage. They show more than two centuries of intensive growth, made possible by a growing internal market throughout the 19th century and a growing international market in the post–World War II era. The transition from farm to factory did not shrink the labor force or farm output. Later, the transition from factories to services did not shrink the labor force, factory output, or farm output. Both transitions affected the types of jobs, not the number of jobs.
declining tariffs in the post-war era made this continued prosperity possible
population growth, the U.S.-led rules-based international trading system, and the steady 75-year decline in tariffs after World War II have made possible decades of continued prosperity
That position was too nuanced for this administration.
- Comment on ‘The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation I Have Ever Seen’ | The most persuasive “people” on a popular subreddit turned out to be a front for a secret AI experiment. 4 weeks ago:
Welcome to the internet? Learn skepticism?
- Comment on It really is just reddit <3 5 weeks ago:
screenshot of text
no link or alt textDude, charge your battery.
- Comment on Getting mixed signals from Reddit. Furthermore I shall henceforth be on Lemmy full time. 5 weeks ago:
you can get banned here
It takes special effort here, though.
And like it was always going to be like that anyways.
It’s not inevitable: some places are very laissez-faire.
- Comment on N the digital age, it's going to be harder for ICE agents to hide their identities than it was for Nazis trying to evade justice post WW2. 5 weeks ago:
I just had a thought: are the Signal people MAGA?
I just had a thought: are the shoelace people MAGA?
- Comment on Philosophy moment 5 weeks ago:
Link to source, because screenshots of screenshots are inaccessible trash.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 1 month ago:
Horseshoe theory
the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center
are both fascists
Are closer doesn’t mean are the same: horseshoe theory doesn’t support your claim.
They’re both authoritarians that repress human rights. They’re as bad as fascists. Identifying those elements that make them as bad—authoritarianism & repression of human rights—clarifies discussion.
When we articulate problems accurately, we can criticize them in all guises.
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 1 month ago:
What did OP directly say or do in their post to direct a response to them rather than the image? All we have is their image in no particular context, an interpretation of the image, & a hypothetical statement I wrote?
- Comment on A bit of salt makes it taste more savory 1 month ago:
randomly criticize someone else over a meme
Someone else or the meme? Are we getting worked up over generic you?
The observation that perceived denunciation for “fighting fascists” around here may more often be someone deluding themselves, so the image rings false with self-delusion is a critique of the meme.
