Sure, but even with something like online political discourse you can do better than getting obsessed over a bastardized provincial political term (liberal which means something completely different outside of the US)

Sorry, I’m having a hard time following the train of thought - are you referring to my use of ‘liberal-democratic institutions’?

I don’t want to word-vomit on you unnecessarily if you’re pointing to something else or speaking broadly about leftist discourse on lemmy (i’ve seen plenty of debates like the one you’re describing)

and providing cover for promoters of russian and Chinese genocidal imperialism and propaganda

Ok well now i’m even more confused - where is this jab coming from?

Maybe you’re taking issue with my categorizing db0 as a leftist space and are speaking broadly about the perspectives about china and russia from that instance? What are we talking about here?

It’s absolutely wild that the obvious needed to be pointed out at all, and that the reaction to it was ‘you just made my list, buddy’.

The worthiness of a discussion has no bearing on the intent and framing of the person prompting it.

The questions are being raised by the same person who included global reputation scores in his backend piefed code for the purposes of suppressing his personal pet peve behaviors. I find that to be informative context for considering the intent of the discussion being prompted.

edit: Oh look, here he is saying exactly what I was just pointing out was likely the intent

Right - which is why it was quite interesting watching Fox news have a 20 minute power struggle over the sudden popularity of May Day in the US and the rise of ““extreme socialist sentiment””

All online political discourse is performance - feel free to speculate how well it is representative of IRL leftist spaces in the west.

Is this a negative db0 experience for you?

Although maybe Rimu should have been more clear in pointing out that this seems to be not an official instance tool, but rather something some moderators have cobbled together themselves.

This isn’t an issue of clarity. His closing call to action is to ‘develop awareness so that people can choose which instances to join and interact with’. There aren’t any practical administrative solutions to the problem being called out, with the exception of defederation or the threat thereof. Any single user on the entire fediverse can copy-paste user activity into any LLM and use the output to make moderation decisions, or craft personalized agitprop or whatever else, but centering the focus on instances that allow their usage turns the issue into a nail that can be solved with a hammer.

I don’t see a technical or practical way to limit - let alone render impossible - AI moderation tools that is not at odds with decentralized open-protocol social media.

If you can copy-paste user activity into a textbox, this remains trivial.

I don’t doubt it even for a second.

I’m lowkey kind of fascinated this morning with what feels like a moment of real panic among western liberal-democratic institutions (projecting a little from my morning news and coffee). That an anarchist instance is getting this much targeted harassment feels like a microscopic extension of that (if I allow myself to be so bold)

As far as I can tell, dbzer0 isnt even being explicitly called out here, but it has an undeniable bdzer0 flavor to it. If it doesnt come out that this was one of our mods at this point, I’d almost be disappointed.

Aside from the ethical implications of profiling users or of using a corporatly owned server and model to execute this, I see nothing uniquely concerning about this practice that isnt already a risk of federated social media generally.

Every mod on every instance is free to use whatever tools or standards for moderation they want - that’s an intentional byproduct of federation. Similarly, the collection of this data for use with llms is a bygone conclusion at this point - there was never any way of preventing that from happening with a federated network.

I think the only thing here to talk about is the way these questions are being framed as a question of intra-instance policy. We already have communities where moderation abuse can be called out and adjudicated- why pose this as a question of instance administration when there doesnt seem to be any evidence for it?

The same billionaires with the same agendas can be donors to both parties without those parties being the same

What’s with all the faux accelerationist shit on here the last few days?

I think it has more to do with their rapid urbanization

Prior to the 1950s, only 10% of China’s population was considered urban. In the same period, the US’s urbanized population was closer to 60%

Obliged.

I haven’t accused you of fitting the label bud, you’ve taken thay upon yourself. The point is still that a particular type of political identity tends to intentionally single out the “bad” billionaires as the problem, while intentionally disregarding the systemic reasons for the existence of those billionaires.

If we don’t agree on what the underlying problem is (let alone agree on what needs to be done about it), then we are absolutely not in alignment. To the extent that we agree on anything, we would still fundamentally disagree on which of those things democrats need to address to win an election.

Crying about leftists making that distinction doesnt do anything to disabuse them of the notion that you’re a bad faith shitlib (notice the third person there) trying to dissuade them of their convictions in favor of what you personally consider “reasonable”

I havent put anyone into a box, i just labled the box and put it on the shelf. It’s not my problem if people decide to climb into it themselves.

Unless you’re upset with my associating liberals with the tendency to ignore the systemic problems of capitalist democracy in favor of directing anger toward just the ‘bad’ capitalists? I think that’s pretty self evident but I’d be happy to argue the merits.

If it looks and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.

One of those things is just a subset of a much larger group, but both are only products of a systemic failure that democrats refuse to acknowledge - which makes them seem inauthentic to most people experiencing the problem.

Libs will pretend that this is not a problem.

One of those things is more true than the other.

This is perfect lib rage-bait.

I’m saving this post and coming back to it later just for the comments

Kinda, but they’re specifically saying the the AI agent cannot itself tag the contribution with the sign-off - like, someone using Claude Code to submit PRs on their behalf. The developer must add the tag themselves, indicating that they at least reviewed and submitted it themselves, and it wasn’t just an agent going off-prompt or some other shit and submitting it without the developer’s knowledge. This is saying ‘the dog ate my homework’ is not a valid excuse.

The developer can use AI, but they must review the code themselves, and the agent can’t “sign-off” on the code for them.

Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve?

What does holding any individual responsible on a development team do? The Linux project is still responsible for anything they put out in the kernel just like any other project, but individual developers can be removed from the contributing team if they break the rules and put it at risk.

The new rule simply makes the expectations clear.