A successful protest reaches people outside of a cause, compelling them to learn more, in hopes that they ultimately become a supporter.
Performative radicalized protests are only compelling to those already behind the cause, and immediately discredited by those you need to reach.
That’s not how any of this works.
A protests’ success is judged by how much publicity it receives, and the disproportionate scale of the reaction from antagonists to the movement. Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem was a successful protest because he was a public figure and had a national stage, and the reaction of conservatives throwing fits over a symbolic gesture highlighted the racism typically hidden in polite white society. The police riot in Selma got national attention because of the graphic scenes of white police beating black folks in Sunday dress, and the scale of the police response to people engaging in peaceful protest revealed the violence inherent in Jim Crow apartheid.
Likewise, the Stonehenge protest was extremely successful because it received international attention, and the disproportionate outrage over harmless dust compared to the real threat of climate change puts a spotlight to the widespread apathy of society to the threat.
You think protests are supposed to reach you specifically, because you’re sympathetic to the protests old enough to read about in history books. But your opinion of those protests is mediated by the society that those protests have already successfully altered. The moderate of the past would have considered those historical protests ‘performative’ and ‘radicalized’ as well. They would also be on the wrong side of history.
Thank you, Lisa Song, for cutting through the bullshit.
Does invidious work for you? https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s
There was a free speech fight in the courts about the right for women two wear swimsuits, many of them bikinis, while serving coffee in the Seattle area. Since then the popularized alliterative term ‘bikini barista’ has stuck to refer to all servers that sell hot drinks while in swimwear.
You really have to scroll down google results to find Just Stop Oil’s social media due to the incredible publicity this action has generated about climate change resistance. Their Twitter account is https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil, and they’re smashing their fund-raising targets via chuffed.
I have concerns about your vision of an ideal community, and I’m cynical of how far technical means can go in achieving that vision, but those concerns are overwhelmed by my support for experimentation. I agree with the prevailing opinion that moderation on Lemmy is hamstrung by a lack of adequate tools. Your project, even if it fails to achieve your vision, could serve as a stepping stone to some future success.
My primary concern is that you may be filtering people into whitelists and blacklists by feeding their comment history with a prompt into a Large Language Model like ChatGPT. If that’s the case, it is a deal-breaker. You cannot submit content via an LLM API and also avoid having that text absorbed by the model as training data. Since you would be submitting the comments of other people, this violates the principles of respect and consent. Many people exited corporate social media for Lemmy to protest this hoovering of their data by ‘AI’ companies; while some have gone as far as to add an anti-AI clause as a comment footer, it should be assumed that every Lemmy commenter does not consent to their intellectual labor being exploited for the profit of tech capitalists unless they explicitly state otherwise. If SLRPNK endorsed a moderation tool that abused other Lemmy users in this way, we would quickly become a pariah instance.
When it comes to software, I’m a fan of transparency. I hope at some point you’re willing to share your code, though I acknowledge your reasons for keeping it obscure. I would advise you to be open at least about the mechanism your filter uses while hiding your parameters if you can, so that you can alleviate any concerns that your code is feeding Lemmy comments to an LLM.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
@ProdigalFrog and I run a documentary channel on PeerTube in collaboration with Kolektiva.Media
At the last family reunion, my mother and I were in charge of making all the food. We spent 3 days getting all of the groceries, and stacked fruits and vegetables in the family room, filled the bathtub with ice to keep the meat, and stacked the drinks in the garage.
We fried the meat, boiled the noodles, mixed the salad, and cooked the chili. The entire counter and range were covered in pots and pans. Most of the intermediate cookware had been rinsed and was in the process of going through the dish cycle while we were setting tables out in the yard, when my Mom realized she hadn’t made any red pea soup. Her brother was flying in from the island for the occasion and she knew it was his favorite. The bag of peas had hid under a couch pillow, and we missed it while making the rest of the meal.
We didn’t have enough time to wait for the cleaning cycle to finish, so I dumped out a shallow stainless steel flower vase and put that over the flame. There was no time to soak the peas, so my mom just mixed them raw with the broth, yams, carrots, milk, and spices, and then transferred them to a clean bowl once the cycle was complete. The soup didn’t look right, though. The peas and broth are supposed to have a full ruddy color, but the result was a much darker red like a beet.
When uncle arrived he was really pleased to see we’d kept him in mind, but after the event was over and everyone had gone home, we found a pile of wet peas dumped behind some bushes. I learned a very important lesson that day: Those who make peas full-red solution in posse bowl, make violet-red solution inedible.
AFAIK the Economist’s Democracy Index and the Human Development Index use methodologies and statistical methods generally respected by social science.
Ad Fontes is a grift posing as a public interest institution to re-package the horseshoe theory and sell it back to gullible people for $500 memberships while promising institutions greater ad revenue if they play along with the con. It’s another tool of the consent manufacturing industrial complex. Are you even aware of their methodology? It’s a joke.
You take credibility advice from an organization that proudly identifies itself as right of CBS News and The Weather Channel?
Isn’t that a little bit biased?
If you think the article is lying, say so. Don’t hide behind the ‘impartiality’ grift.
Maybe, but if there’s real demand for cross-language dialogue, maybe a coder will eventually put the existing ‘select language’ box to work and add some ‘auto-translate to default language’ to the code.
Había una tendencia de árabes que aceptaban el sionismo y algunos de ellos incluso vivían dentro de los kibbutzim, no como miembros, sino como aprendices.Y una vez terminada su formación, se les negaba la afiliación.
La vieja historia de leopardos y caras.
danb.me’s criticisms and tone are valid, but it looks FUTO has taken down their ill-advised license page and are using an unmodified AGPL.
I’m struggling to assign malice here; Louis is a hardware guy, and not every software person is really up on what distinguishes free software from freeware. FUTO seems like a pretty small shop; I’d give them a pass on this one.
@disguy_ovahea has no idea what he’s talking about. He apparently attended a couple of protests and thinks he’s now an expert on social change.
A horse race has about as much to do with women’s right to vote as Stonehenge does with climate change, but that didn’t stop Emily Davison’s direct action at the 1913 Epsom Derby from being a watershed moment in the struggle for women’s suffrage.