1. Post in [email protected] attacks the entire concept of AI safety as a made-up boogeyman
  2. I disagree and am attacked from all sides for “posting like an evangelist”
  3. I give citations for things I thought would be obvious, such as that AI technology in general has been improving in capability compared to several years ago
  4. Instance ban, “promptfondling evangelist”

This one I’m not aggrieved about as much, it’s just weird. It’s reminiscent of the lemmy.ml type of echo chamber where everyone’s convinced it’s one way, because in a self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone who is not convinced gets yelled at and receives a ban.

Full context: https://ponder.cat/post/1030285 (Some of my replies were after the ban because I didn’t PT Barnum carefully enough, so didn’t realize.)

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
    43·
    3 days ago

    @[email protected] I would like to officially request a new rule for this community: Anyone who makes the argument “Yes but censorship is okay, because the mods are the boss, they’re doing community curation” should be banned with the reason listed as “If you insist.”

    • echolalia@lemmy.ml
      41·
      3 days ago

      I’d argue that would be a power trip, friend, because he’s made a major change to the rules without his user’s permission. And, many people outside that instance depend on db0’s communities, which are large and varied. Very unlike many communities at awful.systems, which are meant for venting, snark, and sneering down your nose at people, warranted or unwarranted.

      Everyone at awful.systems likely agrees with the moderation of the admins or they would not be there.

        • echolalia@lemmy.ml
          41·
          3 days ago

          I hardly think it’s suddenly different, it’s just actually different. It’s two different scenarios.

          By the way, my dad works at nintendo and can beat up your dad.

          • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
            21·
            3 days ago

            It’s actually covered by the existing TOS. There’s affirmative support for the standards of:

            • Welcoming attitude and approach,
            • Rational debate and discussion,
            • Genuine exchanges of ideas,

            And under “What is Unacceptable,” it lists “authoritarianism,” and advocating or encouraging “the spread of behavior that is designed to overturn the standards described so far.” I’d say this absolutely qualifies as advocacy for both authoritarianism in moderation, and overturning the ideas of welcoming participants to a rational discussion and genuine exchange of ideas. You might not have been aware of it, mistakes happen, but it is on you.

            • echolalia@lemmy.ml
              52·
              3 days ago

              Alright well, I’ll have my popcorn bucket ready when db0 defederates from awful.systems for “authoritarianism” over snark coms. Keep me posted.

              • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
                21·
                3 days ago

                Oh, no, I didn’t mean the whole instance, I just meant you. I think trying to strive for standards of open discussion across the whole rest of the Lemmy world would be a hopeless task. Just a special case to ban any person who really openly expresses approval for mods banning people just because it’s snarky to do so, though, I think is a nice way to illustrate the real meaning of what they’re so openly expressing, when the snark is directed at the other boojum.

                I’ll leave it up to the mods here if they want to stoop to that level, of course. I think the point is made.

                • echolalia@lemmy.ml
                  51·
                  3 days ago

                  Alright, sure.

                  I’ll bite.

                  (edit: my eating popcorn picture isn’t working and I gave up making it work)