shadowsonawall @shadowsonawall@qoto.org

@mainframed767 for sure, 100% of the increase is because of the ads - exceptionally few people pay for things when they don't have to. Which means, in its current form, content creators could only ever expect exceptionally little when pushing content to peertube. Until peertube includes a "you only get to watch this if I make some money for my efforts" capability, being open source won't impact things in any way.

Any ideas how you might add something like that to the protocol? So far as I can tell, federation itself makes that impossible.

@mainframed767 until there's a path to monetization, creators earning money for their work, alternatives to youtube et al will never take off. People go to where the content is. You can see this in alphabet's earnings report: their fastest growing revenue is in subscriptions to youtube

@freemo absolutely - and thank you!

@freemo oh, absolutely - I meant it as an async activity for sure. Your time is quite a bit more valuable than mine!

@freemo what takes the most time, or is the most frustrating, about moderating? What are the first things that come to mind when thinking "I wish I could push a button and..."

@freemo (and anyone else who happens to have experience). I'm in the requirements gathering stage, trying to understand the challenges with moderating a server in the fediverse. I've heard the currently available tools are painfully inadequate but I don't have any clear information about why or what an ideal tool would look like/do. I was hoping you might be able to offer some insight and/or point me in the direction of others who could?

@TheBird @rmerriam re-reading my reply I can see how it reads "this is impossible, kthxbye". My apologies. I'm not sure this attempt will be better but, what I was trying to say is that humans (and mammals) need to feel like they are part of groups. Tribes, families, "a village" - there is a fundamental need in all of us to be part of such a group.

two important requirements for that group are size and "others". The group needs to be relatively small, tiny by modern "society" standards, and there needs to be people that can be identified as "not group". The "not group" is by necessity less than the group, from the perspective of the group.

any successful society needs to be built with the idea of supporting its members successfully finding and thriving in those groups. Small, relative to the overarching society, groups which all feel they are superior to "the rest"; exclusive.

society can only be inclusive insofar as it enables coexistent exclusivity. Attempting to work against that, to pretend that such groups shouldn't exist, is fighting against a fundamental human need. And, unfortunately, that's a losing battle.

@PavelASamsonov this is a more complicated issue than you give FB credit for. If scale will allow X extra people to connect with an enjoy their families and friends, at the cost of Y extra people's suffering, where to draw the line with regards to Y is.. tough.

It seems you advocate an "if Y > 0 then halt everything" approach but that would deny X people the warmth and joy that comes from connecting to family and friends.

What the engineer was probably trying to get at is the idea that the market should be left to decide: if people feel the service is causing more harm than good, people by and large will stop using it. If people feel the service is causing more good than harm, they will continue (or start) using it. The latter would translate to increases in demand (need to scale) representing a democratized "this is good, keep doing it".

One might not like what the market is saying, or believe that it is a good/fair line to draw when balancing X:Y, but it's certainly a defensible one.

@jq to be social, remotely. Or perhaps, to be social using technology. Something along those lines. The core component though is "being social". Perhaps more accurately, "interacting".

I also like "provoking thought" as a mechanism of social interaction but it's a tiny slice of the spectrum at best. And, evidence supports, a far less popular one than "food I like" :)

@TheBird @rmerriam I don't believe any such society has ever existed but I would love a counter example. Mammals don't have egalitarian instincts, quite the opposite. To fight against that, at large scale.. I'm not sure it's possible. That's not to say it isn't a fine thing to measure decisions by, just that strategic and tactical steps in the right direction should be taken with an eye to landing somewhere sustainable.

@toplesstopics technically the data is being sold to advertisers who may be but are likely not white supremacists. The data might be *leaked* to white supremacists/other bad actors, but that's a whole different thing that deleting your account may or may not protect you from.

I think a more compelling video might be one about why people should give alternatives a shot. As you mention, very few are making a hard switch and most who are have already done so. For everyone else, it's about "should I dip my toes in or not". Help them see why giving it a shot is worthwhile and then who knows - maybe they decide to make a hard switch at some point in the future.

@swilua those practices seem like they are quite effective at ensuring the educational goal: that the student understands the material. An LLM could at best assist while the student oversees the continuity of the whole process.

Of course, the honor code might not have anything to do with education. In that case, I'd tend to agree: "never use an LLM" isn't going to be enforceable.

@conradhackett @religion passes the sniff test. If 83/81/75% of three major religious groups feel that justices relied on their beliefs at least "enough" then it stands to reason atheists, who presumably believe that "none" is the only acceptable bar, find it happens too often.

@mohtashimnizamani Check out the Covid responses around the world. There were 3 major camps that I could see: abuse it as an opportunity to seize/shore up power (China being the primary example of this), "come on guys, we can do this" efforts to prevent/dampen its spread, and "what will be will be". Note that, outside the power grab, the entire world ultimately settled on "what will be will be."

Humanity's response to acute local and global suffering and death is "what will be will be". Climate change isn't even remotely as immediate, the suffering not even close to as obvious (yet), and the costs to having actual impact are enormous compared to "wearing a mask".

Given humanity, how can you believe that climate change is preventable?