See, the big problem in my opinion, is that they didn't convince people that the cops are great. They convinced people that the cops are mostly abusing the people they want to see abused.....
A big problem in that is the obvious and massive societal issue that so many people voted on, and seem to care about, above all else, whether or not the marginalized people they hate are being hurt.
That is such an utterly awful user experience I am shocked it still exists currently.
It's kinda to be expected for the thing only enthusiasts claim is super easy to use, but still.
And people can choose to treat people the same based on that label, and I can choose to think it’s immature.
Sure, but I don't really think you've outlined good reason for feeling so.
Are you dismissing the complaints about ml wholesale? If not, what of the fact that one cannot practically sift at such a fine grain level as looking at every single user?
No, I advocate for not dismissing people solely based on their chosen instance without taking into account their actual views. I do not advocate against blocking ml entirely,
How does the former not inherently functionally include the latter?
Only because you and other people have spent multiple comments not understanding me so I’m only repeating myself.
Is it possible that other people feel a legitimate sense of inconsistency in your comments, hence probing for more information? Or that people understand but disagree with some aspects of what you are saying?
No, I engaged with someone else on ml, and then you couldn’t resist engaging with me.
I think you've very much so misinterpreted my comment here and have taken a hostile tone due to that. My comment is referring to you engaging with the poster of this content.
Your wording as if I would have any reason to need to resist engaging is an odd way to portray me as angry for having any questions about what seem to be an inconsistent set of opinions.
That doesn’t mean I value this engagement or would miss it at all. Let me again repeat that my preference is to ignore these types of posts, which is why I refrained from commenting on the other similar posts OP has made in the past. It’s kind of silly to assume that engagement means you necessarily value the content.
The misunderstanding here, is that you said you aren't missing anything by not being able to engage. This implies that you couldn't or wouldn't engage, but obviously your presence in this thread made that idea infeasible. That's what my confusion was referring to.
It was (still is) unclear to me what you meant by that comment when you haven't referred to any actual way that you've been impacted by this, so it appears you are complaining that you don't care about a hypothetical thing that could but hasn't happened seemingly for no reason at all.
Do you similarly think engaging with a racist by arguing with them means you must also value their content or presence? Of course not.
This is truly getting ridiculous. Outlandish comparison to bring into this.
Chiming in to say that I would not miss them, but also disagree with their views, is not contradictory.
I've never claimed the opposite, and indeed that wasn't the point of that comment.
I think this kind of blanket assumption about people based on their instance is a net negative to the community. That said, I don’t think it’s at all inconsistent to both view OPs attitude as immature while simultaneously not caring if they decide to block ml, precisely because being blocked by immature people is not a net negative to me.
Actually in this very last sentence I think its pretty clear there is some contradiction. You say its a net negative, and this implies it matters any amount at all, or I suppose you could also hold the opinion that you don't care at all about the community but then why bother, and obviously just by way of using it you must to some degree.
It just feels like you are trying to say "I have no dog in this race" to shield your opinion, when you very clearly do, hence debating it and hence the jump to anger present in this comment.
That seems like an incredibly awful design decision, particularly given that post deletions delete tons of content from other people as well.
It would be one thing if there were a separate utility to fight cases of spam (where one might want to automate removing spam posts), but just doing basically that, but by default seems mildly insane to me.
Its both security and practicality.
I would certainly strongly disagree with any idea that this help security outside of security theatre. This is after all, a public forum.
Practicality wise, I doubt this is the reason it feels so ephemeral, because I feel like most of the removals I've run into were for relatively recent content, and likely mod removals (you'd never know though....)
This appears to be one of the only bandaid solutions (as another user has recommended). It's an awful lot of work for a fundemental platform flaw though. I suppose the flaw is a bit more nuanced than any one issue though.
I imagine simply not removing comments with a post being removed/user being deleted would be a huge step up for usability however, but then as far as I gather, lemmy has a somewhat antagonistic relationship with the lead dev?? I remember some folks talking about an alternative being developed using a compatible protocol but it being early along. I guess we'll see if there is enough oomph for that to come to fruition.
I do think there are still edge cases that break that, and it definitely is not a practical solution in terms of adoption or solving the community problems I feel like this must cause, but it would work in terms of personally having a workaround I suppose. At that point, you're just kinda running it for the sake of archiving though.
You have to remember that what you are basing your image of the common PC builder on, contains massive selection bias.
People who are just building their pcs silently, or who run into issues, but solve them themselves aren't going to be posted.
That leaves the people willing to put forth the least effort outside of posts asking for opinions on builds (as well as completely reasonable people who are stuck).
I do think many people don't really learn about everything that would be necessary, but thats largely one of the benefits of humanity; people not having to learn about everything.
I think people often ask a tech person they know for opinions, and sometimes that communication is muddied or that person doesn't know as much as they profess, but I doubt that a sizeable portion of people are just completely yoloing.
Seems pretty reasonable really.
That said, about this:
or pressure them to put a fair and unbiased as possible admin team.
I'm not sure fair or unbiased really have meaning as terms. I think its more that they seem strong handed and are alleged to have opinions based on propaganda rather than fact.
I definitely think the main developer publicly having those opinions is awful though. Projects have had drops in support for less.
Where are these stats from? Like what communities/instances/filtering options?
I ask because it feels like a lot more than that is filtered everytime I go through to look at my comment history/click through to posts.
I mean, this is common sentiment.
There are a few holdouts but very few people coding, especially on things which don't have extremely precise requirements are avoiding this.
I feel like Hanlon's Razor is a disease more than it is useful to anyone in any situation.
So frequently do normal people refuse to acknowledge that others can simply be malicious, that this rule only serves to aid people in giving the benefit of the doubt to people who act in ways to abuse it.
Politicians, shitty bosses, unscrupulous contractors, etc etc. All of these people hurt others by abusing their presumptions of innocence.