Hi @satan@r.nf, please remember Beehaw’s primary founding principal when commenting here: Be(e) Nice.

It is possible to disagree with someone without using abusive language. If you think they are wrong, attack their arguments (civilly), not the person.

Hi, can you clarify what you mean or provide a source? I’m not away of any widespread examples of this but it could be that I’m misunderstanding or misremembering.

Hi @Leafeytea - I’ve removed this comment because a lot of folks are reading it as threatening toward Meta employees. I don’t want to assume that’s your intention, though. If you’d like, shoot me a DM or reply here and I will restore the comment if you would like to edit it to clarify what you meant.

I’m not sure what you mean or what it has to do with this article?

Mod tools weren’t a priority the last time we heard anything from the Lemmy devs about it. It’s possible that has changed since then but I doubt it.

We have had a few people from beehaw working on contributing some things, but from what I have gathered (as someone who isn’t a software engineer) the lemmy codebase is very difficult to work with.

I can pretty much guarantee that on beehaw at least, at least one mod will look at any report. As far as what the mod action would be, I think it would depend on the situation. For misinformation that is deceptive and harmful in some way, we have and likely would continue to remove it. For something that is not intending to be deceptive and/or isn’t actively harmful, I think I would be more inclined to leave it up and leave it to the community to hash out in the comments. For example, I’d be likely to remove disinfo about Covid vaccines or conspiracy theories about 5g or something, but I probably wouldn’t remove a post just because somebody called Linux an OS instead of “GNU plus Linux” or something. But that’s just how I would tend to treat this sort of thing. For most mod actions that aren’t straightforward, we tend to try and discuss them and get multiple perspectives.

The unfortunate reality of headlines is that, frequently, the author of the article has little or no control over them. Generally an editor will be writing a headline for maximum punch and clickability, and very frequently you will find articles with deceptive or clickbait-y headlines where the article is much better quality.

Hi - Beehaw mod here - we very much give a shit. We try to stay on top of things as much as we can, but we’re all volunteers with lots of other things going on, and !Technology is our most active community. If you see something that you feel needs attention, please report it with an explanation in the report reason so that we can take a look at it. We don’t always take action, but we always look at and evaluate user reports.

I think you might need to take a break and cool off. You’re all over this thread getting way too heated for a discussion about a search engine. Please keep in mind Beehaw’s guiding principal and Be Nice.

Hi @ripcord, we have one rule on Beehaw - “Be(e) nice”. In the future, please be respectful of other users when posting in Beehaw communities. Thanks!

I’m removing this comment. Your link isn’t relevant to the discussion, Prop 8 was an attempt to ban gay marriage in a state where it was currently legal.

Further attempts to debate human rights will be met with a permanent ban.

TBH, unless you got extraordinarily lucky (or had the right connections to get somebody to push your NFTs) you probably would have wound up losing money. “Gas” fees on the Etherium blockchain can get really high, and I found this article that has some really good numbers on median prices for NFT sales. For the time period their data came from (a random week during the NFT gold rush) about %30 of artists sold for prices low enough that they were likely to barely break even or possibly lose money on fees. Virtually no artists made any appreciable money on NFTs even during the biggest hype periods.

Behold, the Media Matters report that was attributed as the source in the CNN article.

I understand wanting to know what evidence someone has for an argument, but when the source is attributed in the posted article then demands for proof come across as sealioning which is very much discouraged on Beehaw.

For those that don’t feel like reading that Media Matters report, the account in question was openly and explicitly neo-nazi, and Media Matters has screenshots of a number of posts with memes praising Hitler, Holocaust denial, and “great replacement” memes. There’s also a meme that just says “It’s okay to be a national socialist” which seems about as pro-Nazi as something could possibly get.

Whether it was fascist or not matter because the word has lost its meaning. Could be something fairly innocuous really.

CNN sources a Media Matters report which goes into detail as to the content of the twitter account. Tl;dr, it’s an explicitly neo-nazi account which regularly posted memes and content praising Hitler and the Nazi party and pushing neo-nazi talking points.

I’m not sure what it accomplishes playing semantic games about whether something fits the technical definition of fascism (Nazi Germany absolutely does, btw) when the commonly understood definition of far-right, ultra-nationalist, authoritarianism is abundantly clear.

lol yeah sounds totally righteous to dictate which opinions others should have

I don’t think anyone is proposing that we dictate others’ opinions. But companies, advertisers, and platforms are under no obligation to be associated with the expression of those opinions, and I have no issue stating that Nazis, Fascists, and their ideological descendants are very unwelcome on Beehaw.

Please don’t deadname trans people, folks can figure out from context if you just say “Emily from LTT came out as trans”.

Hey folks - Just want to note that the !Technology mod team is aware of the reports on this post. After some discussion we decided to leave the thread up, since it had already generated a decent amount of good discussion despite the problems with the article itself. However, I do want to make it clear that we do not condone intentionally misgendering people.

If you have any questions or feedback, feel free to reply here or DM me.

@ReCursing, @Cube6392, @acastcandream - I think there is discussion to be had here, but it’s clear to me that folks are getting a bit too heated to be kind to one another. I completely understand, this is a topic that is complicated and that lots of folks are passionate about. I think it is probably time for everyone involved to disengage from the discussion and cool off. If you have questions or concerns, please direct them to me via DM.

While I appreciate that you’re trying to point out factual errors in the comment you are replying to, please keep in mind Beehaw’s primary principle (and only* rule) when interacting with folks in the comments: Be(e) Nice. You can correct factual errors, or just point out that a comment is wrong, without insulting the person making the comment. Please try to engage more kindly in the future. Thanks!

Hey @haxe11@beehaw.org and @Prandom_returns@lemm.ee, I think we may have reached a point in this discussion where we are talking past one another. Please keep in mind the core ethos of Beehaw: Be(e) nice. We can argue from different points of view, but please remember the human on the other side of the screen. Avoid personal attacks and insults, de-escalate when things get heated, and if a discussion devolves then it may be time to just disengage. I think we have probably reached that point, here.