Respectfully, religion really isn’t the cause, it’s just correlated with ethnicity, like language.

The up/down vote system directs the ranking algorithm on how to order posts and comments, and it visually signals to the user the relative popularity of a comment.

This, imo, is a wildly underappreciated mechanic for combating a lot of the harmful issues people associate with social media.

Most people recognize that discourse on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. is designed to divide and inflame people. the reddit-style downvote is remarkably effective at addressing this:

It does two key things in particular:

1. Downvoted comments are down ranked and hidden, so people are exposed to less toxic content.

2. If people do engage with unpopular comments, the negative score influences how people engage with them. On Facebook, commenting to defend Biden’s Israel policy will get elevated and create viscous fights. On Lemmy, it will get flagged with a virtual dunce cap. You can dunk on it, but there’s no point in arguing with it: we can all see that the argument is already over. Laugh and ignore.

Taken together, these discourage people from feeding trolls, and in doing so reduce the incentive to post something uncivil or stupid. It’s a remarkably powerful tool to address a huge problem, and I wish more people understood this.

The murdered we’re Al-Muntasir Billah Abdullah, 26; and Youssef Asasa, 37.

Their poor families… Also, fuck the AP for making that paragraph 11. Jeez.

'Guys, it’s no big deal. I was just doing a science experiment to test whether escaping from a life sentence for my crimes was feasible.

So far, my hypothesis appears to be false.’

Yeah, agree. Tables can be used standing or while sitting in the floor. Chairs are nice, but without tables a lot of stuff would happen at floor level anyway.

Definitely easier to get by without chairs.

Also, there was a lot more hope than change.

Ultimately, Obama did a perfect job executing neoliberalism. And by demonstrating the outcomes of neoliberalism when perfectly executed, I think he also executed neoliberalism in the other meaning.

This is what I was going to say.

Also, long form narrative. Right now LLMs seem to work best for short conversations, but get increasingly unhinged over very long conversations. And if they generate a novel, it’s not consistent or structured, from what I understand.

First, I think she’s a shameless exaggerator.

Second, this is so stupid. Forget your health: how do you actually think you’re effective without rest? Every human being knows exactly how rest works, because we can all run this test ourselves.

This myth persists that some people can force themselves to be effective with minimal rest by pure will, despite the fact that every one of us has experienced sleep deprivation at some point, and all of us know that without sleep we have the intelligence of a 9 year old.

Anyone who claims to be the exception to this biological rule is either lying or they’re stupid because they didn’t sleep and now have the intelligence of a nine year old.

Also: not “needing” sleep is often something said by people with insomnia. People like Trump and Musk do survive on only a few hours of sleep a night. But this isn’t because they’re strong or smart: it’s because their brains are not functioning correctly and they can’t get sleep they need.

Sleep isn’t optional. This PM is fucking up their job by walking through life confused and disoriented.

I addressed this in several other responses.

I’m aware that there is a strong consensus among the actual scholars who study this. The issue is that a consensus is being obstructed throug editorial control by elites. The question being debated, imo, isn’t whether Israel committed genocide (we all know they have). It’s whether Wikipedia breaking standard procedures is a sound strategy to circumvent the suppression of truth by elites.

I think the case in both directions is strong. It’s very appealing in the short term.

Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?

Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.

I want to be clear.

I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.

This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?

I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.

The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.

I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?

Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.

It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.

I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.

Deep take. Thanks for sharing.

I think the comment being posted accidentally in the wrong thread makes more sense.

What does this mean?

WOW. So that’s where that video came from.

This is such a wild portrait into this attorney. They’re a lawyer in the Israeli army, so I can’t not assume that they’re ultimately complicit in so many atrocities. And yet they also did something incredibly selfless and dangerous in the name of justice, which most humans will never ever do.

It must be enormously painful to sacrifice your career and entire family’s social standing to bring a gross abuse to light, and then have much of your own society say, ‘Now that we’ve seen this proof… We’re going to stick with our position. You thought we’d change when you proved the claims of rape? No, we’re just going to admit that we endorse rape.’

I do appreciate their bravery, because the release of this video, imo, has been one of the most impactful events in the narrative of Jewish Israeli self image. This event did force a reflection. It forced Israeli Jews to confront that their actions were inconsistent with their belief that they are a righteous people. Unfortunately, it seems that when faced with this incongruity, they resolved the conflict by accepting that they’re the bad guys rather than insisting on stopping it. But I think accepting it did move the world another step towards accepting reality. And that’s progress towards the day the occupation is ended by external pressure.

Reported experiences vary between the hundreds of hostages, but in general, public statements have been inspecific declarations that they went through hell. A smaller number have spoken more publicly and described specific horrible abuses. Prisoners released by Israel largely mirror this, which is consistent with an abundance of public evidence that Israel operates extremely brutal extrajudicial torture camps.

But honestly, I’m not sure why we’re still talking about this. This started because you said that you believe it’s important to exercise skepticism towards sensationalist claims, and I pointed out that it’s equally dangerous to ignore credible atrocities because they are too shocking.

The situation in Israel/Palestine is really not that complicated. If you’re unaware because you’re not following it, that’s fine, but then I think it’s ignorant to demand extreme forms of evidence for things which are already well documented that you can’t be bothered to review.

The US is materially supporting a state sponsor of terrorism in broad daylight. This is publicly acknowledged by experts and major figures within Israel. Do with that information what you will.

You know, that’s kind of a weird response. Because what I asked was whether or not my interpretation of a set of events fulfilled your criteria for credibility. And instead of answering a pretty simple yes-no question you asked whether Greta Thunberg has published photos of her unclothed body.

I feel like you responded in your head, and then imagined my response, and then wrote a response to that.

But I think I can infer that you’re unconvinced.

Now I gotta ask: if that’s your standard of evidence, do you also doubt the veracity of the Israeli hostages returned from Gaza who attested to being tortured and abused?

If not, I think you’re exercising some pretty “selective” skepticism. And if so, congrats on your neutrality but Jesus Christ, that’s fucked up. When anyone gets back from captivity and alleges that they were abused or raped or violated, requiring them to expose themselves to you as the price to have their claims considered is quite gross. It’s not even an effective form of proof. Most torture is markless, and bruises are easily faked.

I’m not asking you to “believe women” or accept any victim narrative unexamined. I’m just pointing out that you can judge victims credibility without demanding that they submit to your leering gaze. Don’t believe Greta? Fine. I think that just as the hostages are far more credible witnesses to their own treatment than Hamas, the hundreds of flotilla activists testimony is far, far more credible than IDF. But you do you.

So where does this fall for you?

Two weeks after the alleged incidents, we have further reported details. Greta Thunburg has given a lengthily interview to Aftonbladet. In it she alleges that she was tortured in captivity. She also shows off her suitcase, which bears Israeli vandalism. Her story is corroborated by interviews with numerous witnesses, including journalists such as Saverio Tommasi.

Thunburg describes a visit by the Israeli Minister of National Security, Itmar Ben G’vir. Ben G’vir has confirmed this, and released footage of the event. Though the foreign minister has denied the claims that she and the other activists were tortured, Ben G’vir has expressed pride that they were made to suffer. He described them as terrorists. This was reported by The Times of Israel. This should be understood in the context that he is responsible for overseeing their treatment, and he has repeatedly expressed that he believes that terrorists in captivity should be tortured.

So my question, again, is whether you’d say that Greta Thunberg’s claims to have endured torture in Israeli captivity, during which time she was beaten, starved, and subjected to solitary confinement can be considered objectively verified.

I think so. I think the original report was fairly credible, and I think subsequent reporting thoroughly substantiates it by rigorous journalistic standards. Would you agree with this?

That’s pathetic. You’re either an artist or a philosopher. No engineer would be able to write such nonsense

(What no art education does to a mfer)

I’m actually an automation engineer!

Look: it’s fine to be unfamiliar with ideas, but please don’t be rude and stubborn about not knowing something.

You should read Einstein’s writing. Sagan too. If you place technical knowledge as the highest (or only) form of intelligence then maybe they’ll break through for you.