I made a robot moderator. It models trust flow through a network that’s made of voting patterns, and detects people and posts/comments that are accumulating a large amount of “negative trust,” so to speak.
In its current form, it is supposed to run autonomously. In practice, I have to step in and fix some of its boo-boos when it makes them, which happens sometimes but not very often.
I think it’s working well enough at this point that I’d like to experiment with a mode where it can form an assistant to an existing moderation team, instead of taking its own actions. I’m thinking about making it auto-report suspect comments, instead of autonomously deleting them. There are other modes that might be useful, but that might be a good place to start out. Is anyone interested in trying the experiment in one of your communities? I’m pretty confident that at this point it can ease moderation load without causing many problems.
Would you?
My understanding is that downvotes reflect whether or not someone agrees with a post or comment much more than whether the user is making a constructive comment or not so they can only be used to infer how agreeable the comment is.
Use me as an example, I regularly get dozens of downvotes for such hot takes as “facilitating genocide hurts the dems chances of getting elected, we need them to stop that if we want them to win.”.
Sure. Here’s you. Red is downvotes, blue is upvotes. The left-right axis is time, with the past on the left.
The bar right below the red/blue bar code is the key to what comments were in what posts.
One thing that jumps out at me is that almost all of your participation is in political threads, and the majority of it is getting downvoted. It would be different if you were just participating in Lemmy, and then also you had some views that were unpopular. That happens to a lot of people, and I’ve bent over backwards trying to preserve their right to do that when I’ve been making and tuning the bot. This isn’t that. This is almost all just you going in and arguing with people.
One thing I say a lot when talking to people about this is, “It’s not your opinion, it’s your delivery.” I’m going to be honest, when I read your first message here, it annoyed me. You’re coming out of the gate hostile. Most people, when they receive that, are going to be hostile back. It’s just how people work. You’re not going to convince them of your point of view, you’re not going to be able to fine-tune your own point of view to let them poke holes in any mistakes in it. You’re just going to irritate everyone. That’s a choice you’re making in how you approach things, and I think it’s completely fair for people to react to that choice by closing the door on you.
It’s the difference between going to a party when you’re in a fringe political party, and having conversations about it, versus showing up to the party with a bunch of flyers and handing one to every person and making almost every conversation over the course of the night revolve around your chosen fringe political party. The first one is fine, or should be, at a decent party. The second one, people are going to remove you from the party for. I think if you want to make an impact on people’s thinking, you’re going to need to recognize and respect that reality of human nature.
Having an unpopular political opinion is fine. Being a little bit combative with people is fine. Doing both at once is going to collect a tidal wave of downvotes, and also I think is going to make it harder for you to make any progress convincing anyone of anything.
I’m going to stop you right there.
You’re playing a little game where you claim you said one thing and got downvoted for it, when I can guarantee you actually said something different. You probably said that we need to not vote for the Democrats, because they’re facilitating genocide. That’s different. You can say that, sure. Someone might say back to you that not voting for the Democrats is going to make the genocide 20 times worse, and that’s why they’re voting for the Democrats. They can say that, too. That’s progress, that’s people talking to each other. Maybe one or the other of you will learn something from the exchange.
Where it gets difficult is where you go off into this alternate reality where they said, “I love genocide, and I love the Democrats, I’m going to give you downvotes because you don’t support genocide which I love,” and then you start arguing against that thing that they didn’t say. That’s not progress. That’s just people shouting and trying to twist the conversation around so that they can “win.” It only takes a little bit of that before people are going to stop talking to you.
I know you do that, because you did it to me in your first message in this conversation.
I looked over some of your posting history, and I think you’ve got some valuable things to say. I learned some things about how bad Liz Cheney was before she for some reason found her principles and broke with the Republican party over Trump. I saw some debates people were having with you about Russian and Chinese history, where I don’t think you’re right, but it didn’t seem like any kind of badly intentioned thing.
I think if you built up the habit of always responding honestly to what people said, and telling the truth about your own views and the world outside the best way you can, the bot wouldn’t treat you harshly, and you’d also make more progress in convincing people of what you’re trying to say.
Try again: What’s the last thing you said that got dozens of downvotes, and what did you actually say that got dozens of downvotes? What was the opposing side’s core argument, honestly summarized?
Two things:
You’ve accused them of being hostile here, and of arguing elsewhere.
This very post by you comes across as hostile to me.
Paradigm is everything, and here you are attempting to be the arbiter if what’s acceptable.
You’ve also made your own bias clear by labelling someone as “coming from lemmy.ml”. You’re attacking the person from the start.
Try not to be hypocritical.
All I can think about is how this bot is immediately a non-starter because this is the kind of attitude I can expect from the author when asking for support or collaboration. It’s not just in this post, either.
Even if the parent comment here was hostile–it’s borderline, at worst–I can’t possibly understand the mentality of being argumentative in a post trying to encourage the use of a service.
Your 1-star review is noted. When I open a Yelp page for the bot, I’ll be sure to let you know, and you can speak to my manager about it.
I had the same reaction. I’d like to see this graph for OP. (And also a sentiment analysis of their comments.)
You can give me a sentiment analysis, if you want to, you have my profile.
I never responded to this part, and I should have. Yes, people definitely vote in exactly that fashion. They do, however, upvote about 10 times more than they downvote. And, the bot takes into account everything you say. It’s not just those controversial topics. You have to be talking about only, or majority, things that people don’t want to hear in order to trigger it. And, Lemmy is all those minority political takes on things. There are a lot of communities where you’ll get straight-up banned for saying things that are mainstream American points of view. The people who tend to be argumentative like to maintain a fiction that people on Lemmy just can’t handle someone who’s anti-genocide, or something like that, when they’re showing up right next to a “fuck Israel” meme or a “fuck Biden for arming Israel” meme that has 1,500 upvotes.
It’s hard for me to make a convincing argument that it’s tolerant of dissenting voices who aren’t jerks about it without listing off accounts. I can do some version, though, if you’re interested, listing examples of banned and not-banned accounts to illustrate where the boundary line is.
They can’t when that stance conflicts with their party. Hence why “The dems need to stop the genocide, people are not going to vote for genocide” gets you downvoted.
Those exist on .world? I see too many “You have to vote for genocide because trump would do genocide and also other bad things” type posts, it’d be weird if they coexisted.
Sure if it’s trivial I’d be interested, but don’t put too much work into it.
I don’t know how much I want to go around this merry-go-round. I’m losing some of my good humor about it. I’ll try though.
If you need evidence, here it is:
https://lemmy.world/search?q=fuck biden&type=All&listingType=All&communityId=1384&page=1&sort=TopAll
Let’s look at the first page:
118 upvotes (inb4 you pretend that the other three also included that little disclaimer, even though they didn’t)
81 upvotes
51 upvotes
49 upvotes
Expressing the viewpoint that you are claiming is banned, is incredibly popular.
You said, “They can’t when that stance conflicts with their party.” That’s backwards. I can’t speak for everybody, but for me, it’s exactly the other way around. Because I dislike genocide, and because Trump getting elected will accelerate the genocide tenfold, I support Harris. I’m not clinging to the Democrats even though they’re enabling genocide. I’m voting Democratic in this election because the alternative is more genocide. Much, much more.
You can understand and deal with that viewpoint head-on without caricaturing it into something else. You could say it doesn’t make sense, you could criticize the logic, you could try to argue some other strategy that is no genocide, instead of Harris or Trump. All fine. Instead you’re doing a little dodge where you pretend that the only reason someone might say that, is that they love Democrats and are okay with genocide. For as long as that’s your debate style, you are not welcome, as far as I’m concerned. Learn to respect the point of view of people you disagree with, if you like. I think it’ll help you. Or don’t, and get used to being not listened to in some forums, and banned from some others.
You can take that or leave it. I’m not trying to debate you. But I’m now pointing out for the second time that, rather than the issue being your viewpoint, which is popular on Lemmy, the issue is that you are caricaturing your opponent’s also-popular viewpoint on Lemmy into something nutty, so that you can send messages which have no possible possibility of any productive impact. That’s disrespectful and inflammatory. That’s why you are banned. Not because of your viewpoint, which is very popular on Lemmy.
Hell. I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum. I bet I get banned for hot takes like “I should be able to defend myself legally” and “Illegal immigrants should be deported”
You got banned for hot takes like, “A lot more pedophiles endorsing Harris though. It would cancel out if they were about the same, but they aren’t.”
I’m curious to know what you said under the posts about the Harris campaign HQ getting shot with bullets, or the disinformation project which produced the video of illegal immigrants saying they’re registered to vote, but not curious enough to look into it any further.
Sounds like the bot knows its job. The paradox of tolerance is tempting, but it’s resisting.
When was Harris shot at? Was that after Trump was shot at? Was it a copycat?
They didn’t say that. Read again.
Tell you what. I can respond to this in two different ways. I really don’t agree with silencing people who have a different point of view than I do. On other platforms, I’ve spent a ton of time arguing with conservatives. So much time. It’s not unfamiliar to me. I don’t think people need to limit their interactions to only the people who are “right,” if that makes sense. It’s okay for someone to be saying something that I think is wrong, as long as they’re open to a conversation about it. I can say where I think some of your sources have a long history of deliberately misleading people, as a way of making the case that they are misleading you, too. I don’t view you as the enemy, necessarily, but I do think you’re mistaken.
If I’m going to have that conversation with me, then you don’t have to agree with me or be nice to me, but I do need you to be willing to hear me out. In exchange, I’ll promise to hear you out, too, and take seriously what you’re saying, enough to disagree with it honestly and respectfully when I disagree with it. Is that something you’re interested in? Because we have about as different a set of viewpoints as you could imagine, but I’m still fine talking with you, and having a real exchange of views.
If you don’t want to do that, and just want to emit your viewpoint and belittle other viewpoints until people remove you from the community, then I can respond to you accordingly. But I would prefer to do the first thing. I don’t think this is the forum for it, but we can surely find one, and I can spend a while talking with you about the viewpoints you seem to think are getting you censored.
Edit: Grammar
Tbh, I don’t really care to engage in arguments anymore. It never goes anywhere. It’s pretty dumb.
It seems like you were perfectly happy to engage in arguments, when it was you outputting the argument. At me. When asked about engaging in a rational discussion, you bailed, with contempt at the concept.
Annnnd that’s why you are banned. Like I say, the bot is working.
Maybe, but conservatism is considered much more acceptable among Americans than anything left of liberalism. Particularly now when the dems are trying to reach out to conservatives with policies such as closing the border, “tough on crime” rhetoric, unlimited support for Israel, etc. You can check by whether you’ve been banned from PleasentPolitics
Adding “this should be done according to the law” doesn’t divorce an action from its morality.
Rounding up millions of immigrants, some whom have been here for decades, and nearly all of whom are here because they’re fleeing the effects of the US constantly couping their governments and training/funding terrorists is an immoral action, whether they’re legal or illegal.