you don’t need to control the government or elections to disallow the election. I am not taking any blame from the media, either. I am just being a bit pedantic about the term “allow”. for comparison, when someone accuses me of leaving the lights on, I point out that they left them on too, as did the neighbors, police, and president.
when something is undone, it’s because no one did it. everyone didn’t do it.
this doesn’t change the fact that no one stopped it. this entails that everyone allowed it (some even encouraged it, as you pointed out).
I prefer xmpp but I know the matrix onboarding is easiest by far
everyone let it happen. no one stopped it.
matrix or mumble or xmpp
this is so reminiscent if the digg Exodus around the aacs key. bans pushed us to reddit, and at a higher rate than those being banned. Lemmy mau is up over 10%. idk if the bleeding can be stopped.
uninvolved users will stay with it. digg had 2 or 3 major redesigns before I stopped hearing about it completely. it became little more than yahoo! news.
I’m sure that is the fate of reddit now.
you are arguing in bad faith,
they seem earnest.
Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted.
you can’t produce one.
I’m trying to discourage you from making baseless accusations against other users. those accusations can be phrased “this is what propagandists do” or similar. that’s a total cop out.
if someone is spreading misinformation, most communities and instances have a rule against that; report it. if someone is saying something that is true and happens to align with known propaganda, the situation gets very sticky. if you feel you must refute something unsaid, I strongly recommend that you clarify, before and afte, that you are not making some accusation against the particular user.
personally, I would simply nuance their oblique fact to try to reframe it in a way that doesn’t benefit the (suspected) propaganda message, or leave it alone.
accusations of shilling are fucking toxic to the community. it requires a high level of proof.
maybe. but you’re making up the story so you can tell any story you want.
Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don’t actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue.
no, it’s a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
the price doesn’t need to change at all. if it does, it is a decision someone makes.
There is a reduced supply of coffee beans. Let’s say 30%. This requires that 30% of customers have to be priced out of the market.
this is fiction writing. you are literally making that up
an accusation of bad faith is almost always itself bad faith. you can explain the problems with someone’s claims or reasoning without accusing them of intentionally being dishonest.
instead of seeing a spook behind every post, just engage (or don’t) with the comment on its merits. to do otherwise is a form of ad hominem, wher you are attacking teh speaker instead of the content of their speech.
that never happened
jerboa lets me see a weighted feed from all posts the instance can see