If your subreddit is big enough and you do anything disruptive they’ll just take your mod powers away and give them to someone else who won’t disrupt it.

The best thing to do is either over or under moderate the subreddit in a way that seems legitimate but leads to the usefulness of the community dying off while also migrating the most useful content off the subreddit.

Uhm, the worldnews subreddit is literally the most astroturfed online community I have ever seen in my entire life. Lemmy isn’t great because it still has Redditors on it, but it’s still nowhere near as bad as Reddit.

No way he read the book, but he’s immersed enough in that far-right shit scape that it’s not really much of a stretch to believe he picked it up somewhere. I’m sure people on Truth Social love talking about it.

Some are decent human beings that choose to use their money for the betterment of humankind.

Uhm, I don’t think this is a reference to the Purge, I think this is a reference to the Day of the Rope from the Turner Diaries

The world is not flat, stop spreading misinformation.

Imagine thinking this is a salient point, lmfao. “oh, you criticise people writing text prompts on large learning model tools to generate art based on an amalgamation of everyone else’s stolen art, for claiming to be artists, AND YET, here you are writing text.”

it’s so fucking stupid. a work has to be actually creative and novel to be protected by copyright, most AI prompts would not meet the threshold of creativity and originality to benefit from protection.

You’re so totally wrong. Storing passwords in plaintext is such a dangerous, obviously wrong mistake that it can only be considered wanton disregard for the safety and the security of your users, and it should carry the equivalent of a life-in-prison sentence for the corporation which breaks that rule. Not only should the company be completely fucking destroyed over this but the CEO should be criminally liable.

The legal system does not take corporate crimes seriously at all. Perhaps it’s time to take justice into our own hands.

“Oh right, it’s money!!” — Hbomberguy

deleted by creator

Thanks for the well-considered and thoughtful response - I appreciate it.

Just to clarify, I’m not trying to make some typical liberal argument that China is evil or anything like that - I’m very far left and I’m not here just criticising China just because that’s what the mainstream media has told me to do. I just think it does leftists like myself no favours to pretend that China is perfect and that we shouldn’t criticise it - and the essay linked above, in my opinion, seems to be a bit of a reflexive defense of China, rather than actually considering the criticism - to me it seems they are choosing arguments to support their position rather than letting the facts and their beliefs lead them to a conclusion.

I don’t think we have to accept that any amount of imbalanced transactions of value necessarily guarantee that billionaires are inevitable - plenty of systems exist where there are “winners and losers” but the system itself reaches an equilibrium state. There are so many solutions which could be implemented to prevent billionaires from existing, and I would say that billionaires can only ever exist when there is a fundamental flaw in the society which produces them. It should be impossible to so thoroughly capture and centralise wealth and power to a point where an individual can have that much.

I’ve re-read this comment and your previous comment multiple times and I’m not really clear on what you mean.

My point is that the essay’s argument is weak because it completely ignores scale and proportionality. It uses the language of marxism to justify capitalism.

I don’t personally agree with it, but I was willing to consider the notion on its own merits rather than in contrast with ideology - but even when I do, I find it a wholly unsatisfactory justification

This is pretty typical self-justifying bullshit. They’re justifying pre-held beliefs (china is good; china has billionaires; therefore billionaires must be good) rather than actually considering the claim based on the merits. (is it actually a good thing that china has billionaires, and what does that say about socialism/marxism as practiced in china)

You can believe that people have different needs and that we don’t all need to be absolutely 1:1 equal in terms of our material possessions etc. and that having some goal to work towards is beneficial to society (ambition) without having billionaires.

This essay is like trying to justify genocide by pointing out that sometimes, for the benefit of society, the death of an individual is preferable to the suffering of many. The issue with billionaires isn’t one of inequality in the micro - it’s the magnitude of that inequality, and the power it brings, which is the issue.

This is how fascism is successful, because liberals will lie for a lie, but they won’t lie for the truth.

All ages are acceptable for running away from the police. Or fighting back against the police. Or destroying police property. Actually, come to think of it, just any kind of action against the police.

You’ve mixed copyright and patents together and confused yourself a bit. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, but they can be patented. Some game component designs can be copyrighted as well, and even trademarked.

There are many, many, many game mechanics and features which have been patented, such as in-game chat, minigames on loading screens, arrow pointing to destination, and so on. Game studios have to license those features from the patent holders if they wish to use them.

Some random company even owns a patent for the concept of sending and receiving email on a mobile device. The entire system is a fucking joke.

The reality is that this idea wouldn’t really fix any of the actual issues in academia. The only thing that would fix the problems with science is the end of capitalism.

Yes, ACAB. Any actions taken by the police are for either protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful, enforcing traditional/societal norms, or they’re basically a PR stunt. A terrorist attack in New York would potentially harm wealthy people, not to mention Wall Street and the larger economy. so it had to be stopped.

This smacks of accelerationist rhetoric to me. We absolutely can help people to understand that electoralism doesn’t work without them having to experience some sort of revelatory moment. But it needs us to log off and talk to people in real life.