geekwithsoul

Had the same thought :)

There's also advantages to the DC metro area being a "company town" in that it attracts interested public servants with particular skill sets. The DC metro area has a huge number of folks not from here, so it's not like there's a "DC mindset" at the individual level. And the feds have been pretty good on telework (fed contractors, not so much)

No idea on the song, may have better luck identifying the singer, and working backwards from there? Maybe something by Fine Young Cannibals? Certainly the most notable falsetto that comes to mind for that era for me.

That's certainly where the term originated, but usage has expanded. I'm actually fine with it, as the original idea was about the pattern recognition we use when looking at faces, and I think there's similar mechanisms for matching other "known" patterns we see. Probably with some sliding scale of emotional response on how well known the pattern is.

Yep, he's creating yet another false equivalence (it's what he does after all) comparing individuals personally going on their own time to publicly volunteer and whatever shadow-interference-and-misinformation campaign that Putin's stood up for Trump. I just loved that Trump's campaign couldn't even be bothered to spell "Britain" correctly - the worst combination of venality and incompetence.

I think some study came out that said something like 20% of black men owned crypto and now we have this. No idea how it was measured.

Okay - a little digging and it does seem backed up by self-reported surveys. Best explanation I could find is https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/payments-system-research-briefings/the-cryptic-nature-of-black-consumer-cryptocurrency-ownership/

Basically, from the surveys, it would appear that Black adults own more crypto than whites, with Black men edging slightly higher. It looks to be on the order of 20% with other groups trailing by a few percentage points.

Disappointed in the Harris campaign for leaning into this, as it seems to be all self-reported survey data and hardly something to build a policy on. Also crypto is stupid, but that's just my opinion.

Ha! Yeah - in fact it evolved and expanded to the extent of almost all of his interactions being simply copying and pasting his responses ad nauseum. Very rarely saw him say anything he hadn't already parroted back dozens and dozens of times. I kinda get why some people accused him of being a bot, because it's hard to imagine a human deriving anything out of those sorts of interactions.

I think we're talking about different time periods. In the time I'm talking about, before AOL connected with Usenet, the number of high school kids on the actual internet could probably be measured in double digits. There were BBSes, which had their own wonderful culture, but they had trolls and villains in a way that Usenet did not.

It was higher than you think. While an outlier, realize WarGames came out in 1983. I grew up in the suburbs of DC, and by 1986, a number of us had modems and regularly dialed into local BBSes. Basically as soon as we got 2400 bits/s, it started to get more widespread. And honestly since we usually knew the admin running the BBS we dialed into, there were less serious trolling issues. But newsgroups were another matter - usually folks were pretty much anonymous and from all over, and while there could be a sense of community, there were healthy amounts of trolls. What you're describing is the literal exact opposite of my own lived experience. Nothing wrong with that, and doesn't mean either of us are wrong, just means different perspectives/experiences.

I want to second this. I understand the mods prefer a case-by-case approach, but I think that leaves a very specific pathway for bad actors to exploit. Monk was posting a purely insane amount of comments along with a very high but not as insane number of posts, and almost all of it was low-value, and often copy-pasted from a previous comment.

Do the mods even have easy access to the kind of data your script was pulling? I think that may be part of the issue is that the mod tools with Lemmy are lacking/limited.

I definitely don't think this is true. That's the whole "eternal September" thing.

I mean, it was my literal experience as a user. And it wasn't just September, the first wave was June when high schoolers started summer break and spent considerable time online, and then the second wave in September with college kids. Honestly the second wave wasn't as bad, as the college kids were using their university's connection and they usually had some idea that if they went too far there might be consequences. Whereas the summer break latchkey high school kids were never that worried about any consequences.

I'm mostly talking about the volunteer internet. I don't have any active accounts on commercial social media, even for business things.

I know, but that's part of my point. The things that make online places feel safe, welcoming, and worthwhile are the same regardless if volunteer or commercial. I absolutely loved 2007 - 2012 early Twitter - it actually felt like the best of my old BBS/Usenet days but with much better scope. But I haven't regularly been on there since 2016-ish, and completely left Reddit in July of last year (despite having had an account since 2009). For me the volunteer and federated social media has the best shot at being a "good" place, but I don't have a philosophical objections to seeing commercial social media become less horrible, and in terms of understood and agreed upon social contract, I think approaching both with the same attitude should be encouraged.

We don't need the commercial social media to fail for us to succeed, we need to change how people think about how they participate in online spaces and how those spaces should be managed and by whom.

In that case, I think the whole question is moot. The umbrella term of thingamawidget is not both modular and versatile, but its constituent parts are individually. "The thingamawidget with versatile software and modular hardware is…" would then be the more accurate description.

Otherwise it's like describing a brownie as wet and bitter because the egg is wet and the raw cocoa is bitter.

The old-school internet had a strong social contract. There are little remnants surviving, that seem hilarious and naive in the modern day, but for the most part the modern internet has been taken over by commercial villains to such an extreme degree that a lot of the norms that held it together during the golden age are just forgotten by now.

So, I've been online in some form or another since the late '80s - back in the old BBS, dial-up, and Usenet days. I think there's actually different factors at play.

To start with, Usenet was often just as toxic as any current social media/forum site. The same percentage of trolls, bad actors, etc. That really hasn't increased or decreased in my online lifetime. The only real difference was the absolute power wielded by a BBS or server admin, and that power was exercised capriciously for both good and bad. Because keeping these things up and running was a commitment, the people making the decisions were often the ones directly keeping servers online and modem banks up and running. Agree or disagree with the admins, you couldn't deny they were creating spaces for the rest of us to interact.

Then we started to get the first web based news sites with a social aspect (Slashdot/Fark/Digg/etc). And generally there wasn't just one person making decisions and if they wanted to make any money they had to not scare off advertisers, so that started making things different (again for good and for bad). It was teams of people keeping things going and moderation was often a separate job. Back in the day I remember on multiple occasions a moderator making one call and then a site owner overruling them. It was at this time the view on moderation really began to change.

Nowadays giant mega corps run the social media sites and manage the advertising themselves so they're answerable to no one other than psychotic billionaires, faceless stockholders and executive tech bros with a lot of hubris. Moderation is often led by algorithmic detection and then maybe a human. Appeals often just disappear into a void. It has all become an unfeeling, uncaring technocracy where no one is held accountable other than an occasional user, and never the corporation, execs, or owners.

Like yourself, not sure how to fix it, but splitting the tech companies apart from their advertising divisions would be step one. Probably would be helpful to require social media companies to be standalone businesses. Would at least be easier to hold them accountable. And maybe require that they be operated as nonprofits? To help disincentivize the kind of behavior we've got now.