The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Recently, a thread cropped up about indie devs putting “No GenAI used” stamps in their pages, and the amount of people questioning the value of the initiative or outright criticizing it is absurd.
People saying disingenuous things like “It’s just another tool, I didn’t hear anyone complaining about the brush on photoshop”, and “games already used AI, are you also against procedural generation?” or the ridiculous “I need AI to make things. Why are you all against me learning and growing as a person?”
There is a vocal, often severely technically-uninformed crowd that strongly likes GenAI, doesn’t care about and refuses to understand the harm it causes, and needs everyone to be like them so they can stop receiving backlash for contributing to creator exploitation.
And why does it fall on the consumers and workers to figure out how to not exploit people, instead of the companies currently doing it?
I remain skeptical of using solely LLMs for this, but it might be relevant: DARPA is looking into their usage for C to Rust translation. See the TRACTOR program.
didn’t read, easy block, shoulda done this sooner
You streamed together a sequence of misunderstandings, fallacies and self-victimization into an incoherent pile of garbage that fails at actually responding to anything. Got it, got it, you’re god’s bravest warrior, resisting the authoritarianism of people who think others shouldn’t be forced to tolerate your immaturity whenever you act like a cunt. I’ll stop giving you attention now, so sorry.
Toxicity doesn’t “work fine,” it’s contagious and destructive. For projects, it slows progress. For communities in general, it reinforces bad behavior and pushes out newcomers, leading to more negative spaces, isolation, and stagnation, just off the top of my head. These were issues in older communities just as they are in modern ones.
I don’t see why we should abandon moderation for your benefit, at the expense of people who care.
Content moderation primarily serves advertisers
I’m lost, here. Do you not think fighting toxicity and hate speech is a valid and important function of moderation that’s just as much or more for the sake of the people as it might be for advertisers?
You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
I literally linked an example.
tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
Follow the links.
So why are you still upset at them?
Link.
I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn’t outright confirmation, but it’s enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you’re not even properly reading what you’re replying to. You’re going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You’re right, we probably wouldn’t agree, and if my read on you is any good, I’d rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.
If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it. I must’ve not explained myself well, and that’s on me, but you’re missing the point regardless.
Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, “but how would our handling of this affect free speech?” which is a disgrace and a red flag.
I’m commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
You’re answering something else, man.
I’ve seen people defend Substack saying it’s not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.
I’m gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there’s often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it’s not that difficult.
We mustn’t avoid this because “it harms free speech.” Nazis love that argument, and they’re a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn’t get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn’t get support to do so, because they’re one of the reasons it’s necessary in the first place.
“But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis,” people will say, “you shouldn’t support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too.” To which I’ll reply, “tell me more about those innocent ideas.” When that happens, tell me. I’ll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We’ll do it together. Fucking tell me more.
But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it’s always the same shit.
I don’t care if it’s Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It’s one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is “but free speech,” fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.
Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. “We’re popular with both extremes” isn’t a defense, it’s a self-report that you’re just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
Joking for real, or seriously for real? The vast majority of people that used twitter are still using twitter. This applies to users in the united states, of course, but it especially applies to those in the entire rest of the world, where elon’s shit largely hasn’t crossed the culture/language barrier, or doesn’t matter to people.
Realistically, the dignity with which one is treated is not intrinsic, it’s largely a product of our environment. The same individual, worthy as any other, will be treated very differently around the world. Your dignity isn’t merely a transaction, it’s a lottery.
These messages always ring so hollow. “This internet stranger thinks you’re worth it!” Sure mate, but you don’t know them, and likely never will. It’s the perverse opposite of toxic doomerism: positivity wanking for show. You’re soo worth it, now get back to work, bills won’t pay themselves.
Sorry, not aimed at you, jmcs. Good on you for explaining. I’m straight up not having a good time, just block me.
Teslas in general I’m on the fence about, though people should be discouraged from purchasing new ones.
The Wankpanzer? Piss on it for all I care. Damn thing is a hazard to every pedestrian, every car, to the fucking driver themselves. That shitbox’s a mistake, and it isn’t even a cheap one. Draw on dust (“vandalize” lol), glue stickers, spray paint, what’s the harm? Gonna make a musk fan sad? He’s trying to ruin a nation. Anyone that’s still his fan needs to wake the fuck up.
I wouldn’t take a cybertruck if it was free
You’re being ridiculous, why would you seriously think that? That kind of internet opinion doesn’t hold up in real life. I would absolutely take a free Cybertruck, I’ve long dreamed of making my own car bomb.
This isn’t America.
But it is. And it’s just getting started!
I’ve never seen anyone try to sell horror this way, far from enough for it to be a thing.
You feel the curling of the monkey’s paw; the entire app is now in ~/.local/AppName
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.