MolochAlter

In reality you should be able to get an anonymized reference number to show your vote was tabulated correctly though.

The reason there is no such thing in elections, is to prevent vote buying/extortion.

In Italy it’s such an extreme problem that any ballot where the party is not marked with a cross on the party logo and (if present) a block capital name next to it on the provided line, is automatically discounted, because stuff like writing a name a specific way or using crosses, checks, dots, or other symbols was used to track vote buying/voter intimidation in mafia controlled territories.

Some vote counters and polling station overseers would be on the take and keep track of if the votes they expected to see showed up when counting ballots and report back.

If you were able in any way to prove something beyond the equivalent of an “I voted” sticker it would immediately be used to ensure people voted a certain way or to exact some sort of backlash on those who didn’t.

On a certain level it’s healthy that people who have ideologies we disagree with are allowed to participate in discussions, on the other hand on lemmy tankies are an endemic threat because they themselves don’t accept or tolerate opposition, and openly abuse tolerance whenever it’s extended to them.

I suggested this elsewhere but I do think the liberal side of fediverse should build some sort of moderation compact to ensure that neutrality is maintained and that subverting an instance becomes at least harder, if not impossible.

It is when you win them, something Russia still has to figure out.

The difference is that .world admins will ban those people if they break the rules, while .ml ones will ban those who report them.

I mean, we are.

Why would you join an instance where the mods don’t align with your own preferences in terms of moderation?

If there were an instance where the mods were open nazis and banned any pro-LGBT posts, me being on that instance at the very least means I have no problem having to maintain that standard of conduct, if I don’t actively co-sign it.

Having one or two mods who are cunts is one thing, having a whole mod/admin team with an explicit political agenda and line to toe is not the same.

I have no political goal.

Lemmy.ml

Doubt.jpg

I fucking hate tankies, but.

The problem i have, every time this conversation happens, is that cutting them out doesn’t solve anything, and that I don’t want to be coddled.

The 2 main issues we have, as lemmy at large, is that there are some wildly uneven standards enforced across instances and that we have no say about that. There was that hugbox instance that would ban people for being rude and yeeted itself into the void, there was hexbear that got de-federated for its mods actively encouraging being subversive (despite its users receiving intolerable psychic damage after 5 minutes in any lib space where people are free to call them names, or was that lemmygrad?) and now we’re talking about removing lemmy.ml for the fact that its mods are somehow sentient pieces of actual shit.

And while I agree to all of those reasons, I don’t think defederating is the answer.

Every time we fragment the fediverse we make it overall worse.

Average users don’t even understand what they’re looking at when it comes to decentralized networks, let alone can they understand that there’s politicking between instances and such. If I were told “you can make an account on instance x or y, but they don’t talk to eachother so if you want to see stuff on instance y you can’t make an account on instance x” as a rando, I would go back to reddit, the only reason I didn’t is that i really hate the app and I am tech/net savvy enough to handle this.

I am a tad more radical when it comes to speech than most, and I accept that, but I do believe that these people have no power so long as they can’t abuse moderation, so the answer to the question “how do we handle open propagandists”, to me, is to create perhaps a “moderation neutrality charter” and making it very clear which instances subscribe to it, having each instance’s moderation team maybe be required to weigh in on appeals to bans from other instances to ensure a certain amount of balance.

That would take care of that real quick. They can subscribe to the charter and start abiding by neutral moderation standards agreed to across the board by some democratic standard, or they can defederate themselves.

That’s actually something twitter does right with the idea of community notes, that for the note to be published it needs to be agreed on by multiple parties that don’t usually agree in those votes, to ensure there is a bipartisan agreement.

I know this is perhaps too lofty for a ragtag group of essentially microblogging self-hosters, but a man can dream.

The problem with that stance is that you can’t refuse service based on protected characteristics, and afaik that includes access to a space, hence why the “gentlemen’s club” died but the country club did not.

I’m all for reintroducing these practices since the people clamouring for them are also going to be the ones fucked over in the end, but I am also white (by American standards anyway) and male, so there’s basically no downside for me.

It would be a monkey paw levels of funny to reintroduce the legal ability to self segregate as a means to “protect” women and minorities, only to see a complete shitshow as women executives are cut out of meetings taking place at men only spaces, and black people are even more segregated out, etc.

Obviously, it would be horrendous for the average sane person who doesn’t want any of this, but it would make for a really funny few years for the more brainrotted among us.

Person who does not care about a topic

No reaction

Person who cares

Strong reaction

No way!

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Because OP is a propagandist shill.