According to his polling, so does staying in

lmao

Hmmm. Maybe you're right, maybe that's not duress.

Maybe it's fine.

A choice under duress is never a choice.

to be completely fair, it is possible meant "as good of a job as he can", but this is the kind of mumbling that's become standard for him

the bar is just so fucking low, I can't believe we're even having to discuss it.

Liberals are so self-assured that they occupy the majority position that they simply cannot fathom that number is accurate.

I honestly do not think there is any way to get through to those people. Everyone who disagrees is either not a real american democrat or have been duped by the fake media.

They will drive us clear over the edge of the cliff and blame us for giving them the wrong directions.

Right now, the model in most communities is banning people with unpopular political opinions or who are uncivil. Anyone else can come in and do whatever they like, even if a big majority of the community has decided they’re doing more harm than good.

You don't need a social credit tracking system to auto-ban users if there's a big majority of the community that recognizes the user as problematic: you could manually ban them, or use a ban voting system, or use the bot to flag users that are potentially problematic to assist on manual-ban determinations, or hand out automated warnings.... Especially if you're only looking at 1-2% of problematic users, is that really so many that you can't review them independently?

Users behave differently in different communities.... Preemptively banning someone for activity in another community is already problematic because it assumes they'd behave in the same way in the other, but now it's for activity that is ill-defined and aggregated over many hundreds or thousands of comments. There's a reason why each community has their rules clearly spelled out in the side, it's because they each have different expectations and users need those expectations spelled out if they have any chance of following them.

I'm sure your ranking system is genius and perfectly tuned to the type of user you find the most problematic - your data analysis genius is noted. The problem with automated ranking systems isn't that they're bad at what they claim to be doing, it's that they're undemocratic and dehumanizing and provide little recourse for error, and when applied at large scales those problems become amplified and systemic.

You seem to be convinced ahead of time that this system is going to censor opposing views, ignoring everything I’ve done to address the concern and indicate that it is a valid concern.

That isn't my concern with your implementation, it's that it limits the ability to defend opposing views when they occur. Consensus views don't need to be defended against aggressive opposition, because they're already presumed to be true; a dissenting view will nearly always be met with hostile opposition (especially when it regards a charged political topic), and by penalizing defenses of those positions you allow consensus views remain unopposed. I don't particularly care to defend my own record, but since you provided them it's worth pointing out that all of the penalized examples you listed of my user were in response to hostile opposition and character accusations. The positively ranked comments were within the consensus view (like you said), so of course they rank positively. I'm also tickled that one of them was a comment critiquing exactly the kind of arbitrary moderation policies like the one you're defending now.

f you see it censoring any opposing views, please let me know, because I don’t want it to do that either.

Even if I wasn't on the ban list and could see it I wouldn't have any interest in critiquing its ban choices because that isn't the problem I have with it.

Just go out and vote, and Trump will go away.

I already said I don't take issue with any one decision, I care about the macro social implications.

Words cannot express how much I hate phone apps being normalized for every goddamn thing.

Fair point, Margot Robbie

A point of caution:

A large company absolutely could come in and absorb the majority of lemmy traffic and build proprietary code and features on top of the main protocol, eventually making the open source protocol obsolete and supplanting it as a paid/closed-source service. It has been done repeatedly by tech companies, and it is the main reason many people distrust Meta's interest in joining the fediverse.

For all the reasons you just mentioned, we should fight tooth and nail against that from happening, but we should at least be aware of the threat.