Lvxferre

I have two hypotheses to explain the gender gap.

1. The effectiveness of the threats is inversely proportional to the tech expertise of the person being threatened. And your typical woman knows less about files, piracy, internet and the likes than your typical man.

If this hypothesis is true, then splitting cohorts based on tech expertise should show a smaller gap between men and women.

2. Society trains women and men to react differently to threat. In simple words: men are expected by society to fight back, while women are expected to passively accept the threat and play along.

If this hypothesis is true, you should be able to see and measure the different answers in other situations that don’t involve piracy.

With that said, “perhaps” those anti-piracy messages would be more effective if they didn’t rely on bullshit, to the point that sounds a lot like “I expect the viewers of this message to be both tech-illiterate and gullible”.

I disagree with the use of “theme”. It evokes a visual for me.

“Theme” is much, much, much more than “visuals”. It’s a collection of things put together in a certain place (often metaphorically). Cue to narrative themes, thematic vowels, or the Eastern Roman troops in Anatolia. It does not need to be visual.

[from your other comment] context. we’re on the internet, talking about a website not a carneval.

Context in this case it also includes the fact that we’re talking about a place for discussions, leading to the interpretation of “theme” as “discussion topic” (or “the collection of discourses related to each other”). Thus a “Harry Potter-themed instance” in this case should be understood as “an instance where you can discuss Harry Potter stuff”.

Read it fully dammit - OP outright said “Instead, it has a no tolerancy policy against transphobia, which is more clear and probably easier to enforce.”

The matter here is subjectivity. What two people consider “friendly” depends on a thousand factors; and that won’t change just because they’re both queer.

As such, “this is queer-friendly” is a hard promise to keep. It breaks once the first queer person says “I’m queer, and I don’t consider this friendly”. And since queer people are individuals, they’re bound to find different things “friendly”.

However, once you say “no tolerance towards transphobia”, the picture changes. Transphobia exists on a discursive level; it’s shit that people say that denigrates trans people. And the discourse is not something inside someone’s mind, it’s the stuff that is shared by people, thus far more objective.

For example, if I were to utter something transphobic, I wouldn’t have room to say “well, that person there is queer, and they didn’t feel offended”. It’s transphobic so it gets the chop.

Alternatively, think on it another way. Would you rather stumble upon a community and then realise that it’s friendlier than it looks like? Or one that promises something vague, that won’t hold true for your personal experience? I’d probably prefer the former, and I think that most other people - including the queer ones - are the same.

I’m neither an HP fan nor queer so take what I’m going to say with a grain of salt.

I think that the idea is mostly good, but don’t underestimate the amount of work necessary to keep your instance safe. Make sure to have admins online 24/7, that they’re all on the same page regarding rule enforcement, consult often the queer community on stuff that matters, and make sure that it’s part of your admin team.

The main thing that I believe that you need to watch out for is users lacking discernment. They’ll come in two “flavours”: the ones trying to sell JK Rowling’s transphobia, and the ones trying to sell hate against the fanbase.

Also, I’m not sure but I think that “no tolerance towards transphobia” sounds easier to enforce than “queer-friendly”. The goal is the same, the difference is less subjectivity. (In general it’s better to approach rules and their enforcement as objectively as possible.)

This, too. And additionally, perhaps some entitlement? Like, from my impression a lot of people were expecting Beehaw to conform to what they want (access to the comms and users from there), regardless of that going against Beehaw’s goals.

I think that the “controversy” died down. Simply because there was no controversy on first place - just a conflict of interests, where you can see both sides being reasonable but ultimately wanting mutually incompatible things.

I’ll tag the bot owner: @irdc@derp.foo

What happened with your bot?

I’ve been noticing the same sort of behaviour that you’re talking about. And while I don’t know the cause, I don’t think that it’s caused by trolls or bots. Instead I’m guessing a few potential factors:

1. Demographic concentration in general purpose, lax moderation instances, tailored to attract your typical Reddit user instead of more reasonable people.
2. Lemmy+Kbin users being proportionally more combative, entitled, petty, and/or whiny, due to how people reached this platform.
3. “Powerjanny” mentality being inherited from Reddit, specially given the likely higher proportion of former Reddit moderators here.
4. General lack of mod tools, forcing moderators to take sub-optimal decisions on how to handle users and content.
5. Normalisation of witch hunting, making people walk on eggs to avoid being confused with witches, and assuming that the ones not walking on eggs fly on a broom.
6. Normalisation of stupidity, and subsequent normalisation of oversimplifications, assumptions, genetic fallacies, phobia against uncertainty, decontextualisation, etc.; with those things either making the stupid act in a hostile way, or others act in a hostile way towards the stupid.
7. Natural reinforcement of behaviour in social groups.

This is already a rather large wall of text and I’m trying to be succinct, but feel free to ask further reasoning on any of those points.

I hope that content migration (what you called “true” migration) becomes a thing in the future.

That said, the burden of checking your old account once in a blue moon is by no means that big. And if someone replied to you months after you posted something, odds are that the person can wait a bit before you reply them. You can also link your old account in your new one’s profile and vice versa, for more pressing matters.

So while I get your point (and it is a fair point - the migration isn’t completely costless), it’s still an option that you wouldn’t see in Reddit.

Even then, you can still move the community to another instance. You won’t get the same address, but provided that the community wants to leave, it will. (In fact I’m doing this right now, migrating !linguistics@lemmy.ml into !linguistics@mander.xyz )

That’s because the community is not just some address on the URL bar. It’s the users and the content that they share with each other. It’ll be where the users are.

I dunno if it’s just gotten insanely more toxic since July or if it’s just been that way for a long time but oh my god.

I feel like it’s a mix of both: the community there became bitter, more aggressive and more assumptive, while we (people who migrated out) got less used to how things work there.

The practical benefit is when things go wrong.

Imagine that you’d rather not deal with the Reddit admins, for whatever reason. You have two options: either you suck it up and deal with them, or throw away all Reddit content, communities and people, because of those admins.

Now imagine that you had some issue with the administration of your Lemmy instance. You still have both options above, plus a third one: migrate to another instance. You still have access to [mostly] the same content, communities and people as you did before; but you don’t need to deal with the admins of your older instance. You can eat the cake and have it too. That’s exactly what I did rather recently by the way.

Perhaps Mihon will tell Kakao to fuck off. But if Mihon doesn’t, someone else will. [Plus I wanted an excuse to post a cute kitten .gif]

There’s no legal basis to take it down.

Even when there’s no legal basis, a corporation is better prepared to potentially lose a legal battle than a bunch of amateurs are to potentially win it. It’s a form of corporate trolling - “both of us know that you’d win if you fought, but also that you won’t fight”.

That works fine if you’re a corporation dealing with one group that dares to stand between you and the money. But it fails if used over and over, as eventually one group will say “you want a bloody legal battle mate? We’re focking getting one.”

Kakao in the near future, trying to handle Tachiyomi forks:

Those “@-@ tailed jackrabbits” in your link made me laugh. Emoticons in species names? Why not?

I think that we could minimise the loss of integrity if the data is “contained” in a way that your typical user wouldn’t see it but bots would still retrieve it for model training.

And we don’t need to restrict ourselves to use LLM-sourced data for that. The model collapse boils down to the amount of garbage piling up over time; if we use plain garbage we can make it even worse, as long as the garbage isn’t detected as such.