It seems like you were perfectly happy to engage in arguments, when it was you outputting the argument. At me. When asked about engaging in a rational discussion, you bailed, with contempt at the concept.
Annnnd that's why you are banned. Like I say, the bot is working.
Yes, yes. That wasn't the question, though.
Where did you find this story? Do you usually read Fox News, and this headline jumped out at you and you had to spread the word? Did someone email it to you? Do you have a Google News alert set up, to send you stories involving Kamala Harris, so you can post them if they're bad, and further your mission of anticolonialism? Did you see it on Facebook when one of your Republican relatives posted it? How did you happen to come across this Fox News story?
I'm saying that the bot is incorrect. Look up any pro-Palestinian or -Arab source on it, and you'll find a pretty bald-faced statement that it is factually suspect, because its viewpoint is anti-Israel. Look up the New York Times, which regularly reports factually untrue things, including one which caused a major journalistic scandal near the beginning of the war in Gaza, and check its factual rating.
Every report of bias is from somebody's point of view. That part I have no issue with. Pretending that a source is or isn't factual depending on whether it matches your particular bias is something different entirely.
Can you give an example of someone who ever posted something disingenuous that MediaBiasFactCheck got in the way of?
Do you mind if I give some examples? What you're saying is valid in the abstract, but I think pointing out concrete examples of what the bot is reacting to will shed some light on what I'm talking about.
I looked at the bot's judgements about your user. The issue isn't your politics. Anti-center or anti-Western politics are the majority view on Lemmy, and your posts about your political views get ranked positively. The problem is that somehow you wind up in long heated arguments with "centrists" which wander away from the topic and get personal, where you double down on bad behavior because you say that's the tactic you want to employ to get your point across. That's the content that's getting ranked negatively, and often enough to overcome the weight of the positive content.
If Lemmy split into a silo that was the 98.6% of users that didn't do that, and a silo of 1.4% of users that wanted to do that, I would be okay with that outcome. I completely agree with your concern in the abstract, but that's not what's happening here.
I know exactly what you mean. If I had to pick one type of comment that the bot is designed to ban for, those are them. It turns out to be pretty easy to do, too, because the community usually downvotes those comments very severely, even if the current moderation rules allow them even when someone does them 20 times a day.
Pick a name of someone you've seen do that, search the modlog on slrpnk.net, and I think you will find them banned by Santa. And, if they're not, DM me their username, because there might be some corner case in the parameter tuning that I have missed.
I was kind of like rooting for you, but it just seems like from what you said here that you’re only gonna allow people to be rude to whatever party. It is that the majority people on Lemmy don’t like.
You're absolutely right to worry about this. This was one of my biggest concerns when I was setting it up. Lemmy already has a definite community vibe and consensus opinions to go with it, and I think censoring the "opposition" opinion is one of the quickest routes to turning any political community into a useless circle-jerk. Most lemmy.ml communities are like that.
My goal was to set the parameters broadly enough that people who disagree with the community are allowed to say whatever they want, but still strict enough that people who are outright jerks in any big fraction of their comments get removed. The current tuning bans about 1.4% of the community. You're still not banned. I don't think limiting it to 98.6% of the community will create too much of a circlejerk. There's only one user that I'm aware of that is banned, for which I disagree with the ban, and I talked to them for a while, and sent them some detailed examples of what the bot concluded about their posting. I concluded by saying that while I disagree with silencing them, I think amending the way they present their posts will help the bot's conclusions about them, and also for the same reason get their point across more effectively to any person who's reading them. The huge amount of downvotes they're getting doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, but it does mean most people are putting them in that bottom 1.4%, which is a problem if they want to convince anyone or accomplish anything.
It helps that I sympathize with some viewpoints that are unpopular, so I get it if someone wants to have the right to speak their mind without some person looking over their shoulder deciding if they're allowed to, or if they're being civil enough about each individual comment. You're right. That's ridiculous.
You’re just going to take their word for it, as if they’re some certified expert and shit? “I don’t like what you said, therefore i deem you a this or a that”
Absolutely not. Part of what came through over and over again while I was tuning the bot, and looking over mod decisions to contrast with it, was that a lot of times the moderators are coming in and making snap judgements that are far less complete and accurate than can be gotten from looking at what the whole community consensus thinks is a problem.
You’re doing exactly what Lemmy is already doing.
Why is it that some of you moderators and admins can’t just be equal without letting your feelings dictate who is right and who is wrong?
Assess both sides under the SAME scrutiny, even if you don’t like something. I mean, really who, even wants to be a part of a discussion like this?
This is the algorithm. It's not going to be clear what it's doing, since it's not commented well and it would be complicated to understand even if it were, but surely you can see that there is no "if my_llm_thinks_is_fascist:" block in it or anything.
Like I said, you're not banned, as of the current parameters. Part of the idea is to give people the freedom to come in and say what they want, instead of having an overworked mod decide by hand on the spot what is disinformation, what is incivility, what sources are reliable and not, important and not trivial decisions like that. I don't know how to duplicate for you the time I spent looking over what the conversations really look like, how to draw the line so that the people everyone thinks are clearly bad actors are removed, but the people who are simply unpopular or have a minority opinion are welcome, but that's what I tried to do.
One way to cut to the chase: Just try it. Come in, say some political opinions, see if it works. The bans are mostly static based on past behavior, so as long as you're not posting porn or KKK flyers or something, I think you'll be fine.
If it's something outside the realm of politics I will probably moderate it by hand. I'm not trying to offer a blanket "free speech safe space" for racism or anything else that anyone feels like posting. Sorry. If you want that, you can go to Twitter. It's up to you of course, but I think that this is a step closer to what you're saying here that you want, not a step away from it.
I made !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net for this exact reason. I wouldn't describe the influx of shit opinions as exclusively conservative, but it's definitely an influx, and it definitely requires some type of different reaction than the four unsatisfying horsemen of blocking, defederating, replying to each one until your fingers start to hurt, or seething silently. And every so often having a moderator delete one explicitly racist comment isn't the answer.
The model I am trying to make is that if you're consistently getting downvotes from trusted members of the community, out you go. The theory is that that will make the whole thing less excruciating. You can look more about it at !santabot@slrpnk.net. I don't know if it it going to work. But something must be done.
Edit: Fixed the link. There is no Pleastant Politics.
Not that the line starting to go down would represent positive progress on climate change. It would mean only less new damage with every passing year, a smaller progress in worsening the catastrophe that's already well in motion. But the fact that the line isn't even going down illustrates the catastrophic absurdity of claiming that we're making tangible progress with existing policies.
The home we all live is on fire, and we're still lighting new blazes, while congratulating ourselves that we're meeting our targets.
I am a big fan of Kitboga's work.
Being the same person who was banned, and posting from a new account, is ban evasion.
You can find a place that can put up with you, if you want to try. That's the sense in which your voice won't be silenced. The same people who've seen what you have to say and want no part of it are not obligated to continue listening to it forever, with you disabling their attempts not to hear from you anymore. That's protecting their rights to use Lemmy as they want to use it.