Wow, the billionaires seem completely convinced that U.S. citizens will go along with anything… well, hmmm… who’s going to argue with them… it’s true, after all, that they do…

Yep, sorry. But hey, this thread definitely has its fair share of mudslinging. Hope you’re getting your money’s worth.

Hmm, well, the moderation workload does need to remain reasonably manageable for you guys.

I can’t really judge that, of course, but perhaps you could identify specific topics from the modlog that have repeatedly caused problems in the past. For example, posts about political parties (such as the two U.S. parties or the far-right AfD in Germany, etc.), political movements like MAGA, politicians like Trump and his allies, wars (such as the current U.S.-Iran conflict), or technologies like LLMs.

You could also try surveying the community itself to identify such “controversial topics,” perhaps in a pinned post, where you could set a minimum number of upvotes per suggestion for a suggestion to be included.

I think this would yield a number of concrete examples that illustrate what is meant by “no politics.” The more examples there are, the clearer it would probably be.

Thank you very much for the background information. And also for the time you spend moderating—that is truly commendable and is indeed very much needed.

Perhaps I should have reached out to you directly, but I was so outraged that I didn’t, especially since this wasn’t the first post of mine you’d removed for the same reason.

Well, looking at all the downvotes here, it seems your approach to “showerthoughts” is being liked and even vigorously defended by many.

As I said, I see it differently and consider it very dangerous to define community rules so broadly that they simply leave the decision of what’s allowed and what isn’t exclusively up to the moderators. In your case, this seems to be done with caution and reasonable consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that rules must be clearly defined and transparent from the outset so that it’s clear what to expect. Likewise, to ensure that decisions are not made purely on a whim.

As I said, I consider the “no politics” rule unsuitable for this, since there’s simply no such thing as a topic that might not be political to someone.

But since many here seem to see it quite differently, I’m probably wrong. Still, I simply can’t accept that it’s a lottery whether my posts will be allowed or not in a general community that doesn’t have a fixed topic.

Therefore, I have to accept the rules and just post elsewhere, where there is no such rule. I think that’s better for everyone, since my posts at your community only seem to lead to conflicts, which is certainly not my intention at all.

If you’d like, I’ll delete this post here right away, but it seems to me that it might be a good way to gather some more opinions on the rule in question.

Please let me know if you see it differently—in that case, I’ll delete this post here immediately.

Well, I simply didn’t have the motivation anymore, so I didn’t take the time to look for a community where this post might not have been removed.

However, since I’ve often found myself starting to read a post and leaving a comment on it, only to discover that the post had been removed because of this arbitrary “no politics” rule, I thought I’d use this admittedly salty post to point out what kinds of posts are currently being removed in one of the largest Lemmy communities.

I think it’s important for people to be aware that a community whose name suggests it’s a place to share your thoughts with others is, in fact, a community where a kind of “thought police” decides—based on their own sensitivities—what people get to see and what they don’t. That’s exactly what this “no politics” rule amounts to, because any topic can be interpreted as political if you don’t have a clear definition of what “political” actually means.

I don’t understand how so many people can think it’s a good idea to give moderators a rule that allows them to remove posts at will. It’s like banning posts about mathematics in a physics community—it’s simply absurd.

Thanks for the heads-up! I guess that’s what I’ll do. It’s a shame that the largest communities, of all places, are censoring themselves like this.

I’ll spare you any “hot takes” in the future by no longer participating in your “community” all together. That way, I won’t have to deal with the thought police who rule over your shower thoughts.

I can understand that moderation is time-consuming, but it’s pretty absurd what you’re pulling. It’s nothing short of arbitrary censorship, because there’s nothing in the world that can’t be called “political” in one way or another

So, in short: Mission accomplished—another user silenced who was disrupting your addiction to entertainment with pesky remarks about reality.

Don’t worry, the bots will keep you well entertained. You don’t need to post anything at all; you can simply leave your comments and receive automated replies that fully take your feelings into account.

Don’t worry, the bots will take over here, too—with delicious meals that are very healthy.

Thank you very much!

I wasn’t aware that this was such a big issue in the Fediverse that there are already dedicated communities discussing it.

Until now, I’d assumed the matter was somewhat settled since the larger communities on .ml now have an equivalent elsewhere. I’ve come across this problem several times elsewhere as well (the “no politics” rule, even though the post wasn’t political in any sense), but I guess I’m just completely out of the loop.

So it’s probably more a case of it being a different overlord (the U.S. instead of Russia).

I can only conclude from this that even platforms like Lemmy on the the Fediverse are controlled by billionaires. That might sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, but given their unscrupulousness, it seems all too likely to me.

Either way: for me, the matter is clear—you can’t express your opinion here either.

It’s disillusioning, but at least now I know how I need to conduct myself here.

Can you name a single topic that isn’t political? And: How can you fail to see that such an indefinable rule is completely out of place in a free network? You must know that there are immeasurably wealthy people who have no qualms about buying their way to impose their worldview. How can you still believe it’s a good idea for many of the largest communities in the open Fediverse to establish rules that are so vague they not only make arbitrariness possible but actually encourage it?

You could have posted this comment on my post if it hadn’t been removed by the mods at ShowerThoughts because it was apparently too political—at least according to arbitrary Rule 3, which always comes into play whenever something is posted that the mods don’t like, or maybe even those who send them a little money… I have no idea how things work there, but in any case, there’s no way to have a debate on this issue.

I’m pretty sure this technology will never have its moment in the spotlight because it can never, ever live up to the expectations that marketing has hyped up.

After multibillion investments and a database that encompasses nearly everything humans have ever produced, the lofty promises have, as expected, failed to materialize. It’s simply nothing more than a tool that can certainly be used profitably. But its areas of application have absolutely nothing to do with what was promised to investors. It is simply not artificial intelligence, but a search engine that reproduces existing data or, upon request, assembles it into something that looks like it’s new, but is actually just a collage of what the model was fed.

The fact that humans, in their way of being creative, naturally never operate outside the bounds of their own experience was exploited by marketing here to portray the probability calculations performed by LLMs as comparable to what we understand as intelligence. For LLMs, however, this is never achievable. It is merely an illusion built on the lack of understanding among so-called decision-makers.

You’re the best! Unfortunately, the Rhineland isn’t in reach for me, but I’ll look around (nothing listed for my zip there atm). I had no idea that they were actually looking for volunteers here, too.

Thank you so much for the info. I’ll check those links regularly now and get involved if something pops up that’s even somewhat close to where I am. If I come across any other sites during my research that might be interesting, I’ll let you know.

I’m already thinking about anything more I could do. Those little creatures are so majestic and useful, and some species could use some help in my home country, too. It’s truly commendable that you’re standing up for them and raise awareness. We need a lot more people like you—then the world would be a much better place. But hey, you’re showing us how we can all do our part.

Here in Germany, there are various professionals who are employed and mainly funded by the government, but if I ever have to deal with owls myself I’ll get in touch with you right away.

I joined my local nature conservation a years ago, and you definitely played a part in that. I only provide a little financial support, but maybe I can do even more—besides following their very helpful recommendations for protecting nature (which is why I now only grow wildflowers on my balcony for example).

Aww, I’m so happy to hear that! I wish you all the very best, and thank you so much once again for letting us all be a part of this—even if it’s just in a very small way.

That’s what a true hero would say! Thank you so, so much!

I just mentioned you again since I made a typo at first and wasn’t sure if the mention would still work after I edited it. But it worked out—hey, better safe than sorry: credit where credit is due!

A huuuuge thank you also to @anon6789@lemmy.world for all these superbowls! Your posts are a true blessing!

For me, ever since I’ve been here, all those adorable owls have always been a symbol of what’s wonderful about Lemmy.

Uh, oh, don’t forget @anon6789@lemmy.world with all the superbowls

I’m afraid, unfortunately, that it is precisely the idea that anyone could understand everything without much effort that makes people so susceptible to utter nonsense.

This also gives rise to the impression that so-called intellectual elites are nothing more than charlatans who want to pull the wool over the public’s eyes with their incomprehensible “intellectual secret language.” So people end up looking to idiots who, while having not the slightest clue about the subject, explain things in a way that anyone can follow—even without knowing anything about it themselves—or at least believe they understand all the “nonsense” those snobby scientists are spouting.

In my view, this effect—which definitely exists—also clearly reveals who is primarily responsible for it: namely, the operators of the major social media platforms, all of whom are billionaires that have a genuine interest in ensuring that the masses allow themselves to be duped.

If that were not the cause, this effect would have to occur particularly among the financial elite as well, and people would be asking en masse whether their vast power might be unjustified—yet this does not seem to be the case at all among the general public.

This in turn gives rise to the schizophrenic state whose effects we are witnessing today: People distrust science, but they do not question the goals pursued, for example, by climate change deniers, who by no means came up with their narratives on their own, but are well paid to spread them as widely as possible.

I fear that this problem could only be solved by significantly reducing the influence of billionaires on public opinion—but in our system, where they wield almost unrestricted power, this unfortunately seems virtually impossible.