A few times a week, I regret calling the community "pleasant." It was meant to mean "jerk-free," but it's a misnomer. US politics isn't all that pleasant right at the mo.
The tool that detects unreasonable people and is effective at combatting them, a whole lot of unreasonable people really don't like, and they're being really unreasonable in how they approach the conversation. Go figure.
It wouldn't be hard to make it work on PieFed. A first step, having it load up the voting flow patterns and make its judgements, would be very easy. It just needs a PieFed version of db.py, it would take 10-20 minutes. Is that something you're interested in me working up? If I did that, it would be pretty simple for someone to get it working on PieFed, just fill in .env and run the script. Then you'd have to fire up the interpreter, unpickle user_ranks.pkl and start poking around in there, but I could give you some guidance.
That's where I would start with it. Getting it to speak to the PieFed API to enact its judgements would be a separate thing, but checking it out and seeing what it thinks of your users and how easy it is to work with, as a first step, is very easy.
I had this vague vision of augmenting Lemmy so that it has a user-configurable jerk filter, which can be switched to filter out the avowed jerks from your view of the Lemmyverse regardless of whether the moderators are getting the job done. I think putting the control in the hands of the users instead of the mods and admins would be a nice thing. If you want to talk about that for PieFed, that sounds grand to me.
For example how do you think the bot would’ve handled the vegan community debacle that happened.
That's not a situation it's completely equipped to handle. It can decide what the community's opinion of someone is, but it's not going to be able to approach any kind of judgement call, in terms of whether a post by a permitted user is unexpectedly dangerous misinformation that the admins need to remove. That's a judgement call that humans can't effectively come to a conclusion on, so definitely the bot won't be able to do any better.
There is some interesting insight to be had. One of the big concerns that people had about the bot's premise was that it would shut down minority opinions, with vegans as a perfect example.
I tried going back and having it judge https://lemmy.world/post/18691022, but there may not be recent activity for a lot of those users, so there's a risk of false negatives. The only user it found which it wanted to do anything to was [email protected], who it wanted to greylist, meaning they're allowed to post, but anything of theirs that gets downvotes will get removed. That sounds right to me, if you look at their modlog.
I also spent some time just now asking it to look at comments from vegantheoryclub.com and modern comments from [email protected], and it didn't want to ban or greylist anybody. That's in keeping with how it's programmed. Almost all users on Lemmy are fine. They have normal participation to counterbalance anything unpopular that they like to say, or any single bad day where they get in a big argument. The point is to pick out the users that only like to pick fights or start trouble, and don't have a lot that they do other than that, which is a significant number. You can see some of them in these comments. I think that broader picture of people's participation, and leeway to get a little out of pocket for people who are normal human people, is useful context that the bot can include that would be time-prohibitive when human mods are trying to do it when they make decisions.
The literal answer to your question is that I don't think it would have done anything about the Vegan cat food issue other than letting everyone hash it out, and potentially removing some comments from EndlessApollo. But that kind of misinformation referee position isn't quite the role I envisioned for it.
Like you said it sounds like a good way of decentralizing moderation so that we have less problems with power tripping moderators and more transparent decisions.
I wasn't thinking in these terms when I made it, but I do think this is a very significant thing. We're all human. It's just hard to be fair and balanced all of the time when you're given sole authority over who is and isn't allowed to speak. Initially, I was looking at the bot as its own entity with its own opinions, but I realized that it's not doing anything more than detecting the will of the community with as good a fidelity as I can achieve.
I just want it so that communities can keep their specific values while easing their moderation burden.
This was a huge concern. We went back and forth over a big number of specific users and situations to make sure it wasn't going to do this, back in the early days of testing it out and designing behaviors.
I think the vegan community is a great example. I think there was one vegan user who was a big edge case in the early days, and they wound up banned, because all they wanted to talk about was veganism, and they kept wanting to talk about it to non-vegans in a pretty unfriendly fashion. I think their username was vegan-related also. I can't remember the specifics, but that was the only case like that where the bot was silencing a vegan person, and we hemmed and hawed a little but wound up leaving them banned.
The guy set himself up for it for saying a god damn word about "suppression of dissenting voices" while he's logging into SuppressionOfDissentingVoices.ml every day to access his Lemmy account.
There's a big difference between nonsense, bad faith, and something coherent that you just don't agree with.
Being unable to make sense of something that isn't what you believe, pretending that the person saying it must be horrible or stupid, is a hallmark of intellectual weakness. That's your option, but I would recommend that you grow out of it at some point.
The robot has nothing to do with this. No one involved is going to get banned or moderated, because everyone involved is interested at least on some level in real conversation and debate. I'm just weighing in to tell you interpersonally that I think you're being a jerk in this instance. I think it would be to your benefit to back up and realize that the person may have a point about self-medicating with weed being a bad idea after a certain point, irrespective of any legal issues. Whether or not you wind up ultimately being convinced by any of it, that's a more mature way to do it than immediately going on the warpath against them.
You can do that now, and evade human moderation in the same way.
I don't want you to give it a try in the Santa communities, even though it would be a badly-needed test of the system. The code that's supposed to detect and react to that doesn't get much action. Mostly it's been misfiring on the innocent case, and attacking innocent people because they're new and they said one wrong thing one day. I think I fixed that, but it would be nice to test it in the other case, with some participation that I know is badly intended, and make sure it's still capable of reacting and nuking the comments.
But no, please don't. The remedy for that kind of thing is for admins to have to do work to find and ban you at the source, or look at banning VPNs or something which is sad for other reasons, so I don't want that. Just leave it until real bad people do it for real, and then me and the admins will have to work out how to get rid of them when it happens.
I tried that early on. It does have a "perspective," in terms of what communities are the trusted ones. What I found was that more data is simply better. It's able to sort out for itself who the jerks are, and who are the widely trusted social networks, when it looks at a global picture. Trying to tell it to interpret the data a certain configured way or curtail things, when I tried it, only increased the chance of error without making it any better-tuned to the specific community it's looking at.
I think giving people some insight into how it works, and ability to play with the settings, so to speak, so they feel confident that it's on their side instead of being a black box, is a really good idea. I tried some things along those lines, but I didn't get very far along.
Maybe it'd be nice to set it up so it's more transparent. Instead of auto-banning, it can send auto-reports to the moderators with comments which it considers to be bad, and an indication of how bad or why. And then, once a week, it can publish a report of what it's done and why, some justification for anyone who it took action against, so that everyone in the community can see it, so there aren't surprises or secrets.
I thought about some other ideas, such as opening up an "appeal" community where someone can come in and talk with people and agree not to be a jerk, and get unbanned as long as they aren't toxic going forward. That, coupled with the idea that if you come in for your appeal and yell at everyone that you are right and everyone else is wrong and this is unfair, your ban stays, could I think be a good thing. Maybe it would just be a magnet for toxicity. But in general, one reason I really like the idea is that it's getting away from one individual making decisions about what is and isn't toxic and outsourcing it more to the community at large and how they feel about it, which feels more fair.
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:
Let's look at the first page:
Fuck Biden and fuck Putin.
(Even though I did vote for Biden in 2020 and plan to again in 2024 if he’s the Democratic nominee.)
118 upvotes (inb4 you pretend that the other three also included that little disclaimer, even though they didn't)
Also genocide. Never forget that Biden is aiding and abetting a genocide. Don’t fucking look away because he’s your guy, motherfuckers
81 upvotes
Obligatory: Fuck Biden, Fuck Putin, Fuck Netanyahu/IDF and anybody else complicit in killing innocent people and/or oppressing people.
51 upvotes
Broadly, Biden supporting this genocide in the way that he has is costing him the election. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean you support Trump. Arguing that if you don’t support Biden in-spite of this position is headspinning, and some posters here (@[email protected] ) are doing the work of trying to separate the left from Democrats in this regard.
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.
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.
It's the last 30 days of comments. That's long enough to be robust, but short enough that someone can realistically rehabilitate their image with the bot by not being a jerk for 30 days, and restore their posting ability.
I was hoping that it would be a good tool for self-reflection and fairness in moderation. In practice, the people who get banned for being jerks are totally uninterested in revising their commenting strategy, and choose instead just to yell at me that I'm awful and my bot is unfair and it should be their right to come in and be a jerk if they want to, and banning them means I am breaking Lemmy. Then they restart one of the arguments that got them banned in the first place. I don't know what I was thinking, expecting anything different, but that's what happened. You can see some of it happening in these comments.
New accounts, or accounts that have been recently inactive, are a hard problem. I think I've got it mostly worked out now. If the bot has limited information, it won't ban you, but it will be super-strict if you have a generally negative reception, and if its unclear impression of you is negative and you also make a comment that gets downvoted, it'll delete the comment. I think it should work fairly well, but it's still in development. It's hard to test, because that situation only comes up a few times a month, so I basically just have to wait a while every time I do it.
You can check a user by searching the modlog for their user, and [email protected] as the moderator, and see what comes up. If you see that they've been banned at any point, then they are probably a reprobate of one sort or another.
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.
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.
1
Pro-Trump dark money network tied to Elon Musk behind fake pro-Harris campaign scheme
(www.opensecrets.org)
They have no effect. The impact of someone's upvote is dependent on how much trust from the wider community that person has. It's a huge recursive formula, almost the same as PageRank. The upshot is that those little isolated wrong communities have no power unless the wider community also gives them some upvotes. It's a very clever algorithm. I like it a lot.
For normal minority communities like vegans, that's not a problem. They still get some upvotes, because the occasional conflict isn't the normal state, so they count as normal users. They post stuff, people generally upvote more than they downvote by about 10 to 1, and they are their own separate thing, which is fine. For minority communities that are totally isolated from interactions with the wider community, they just have more or less 0 rank, so it doesn't matter what they think. They're not banned, unless they've done something, but their votes do almost nothing. For minority communities that constantly pick fights with the wider community, they tend to have negative rank, so it also doesn't matter what they think, in terms of the impact of them mutually upvoting each other.
I think it might be a good idea to set up "canary" communities, vegans being a great example, with the bot posting warnings if users from those communities start to get ranked down. That can be a safety check to make sure it is working the way it's supposed to. Even if that downranking does happen, it might be fine, if their behavior is obnoxious and the community is reacting with downvotes, or it might be a sign of a problem. You have to look up people's profiles and look at the details. In general, people on Lemmy don't spend very much time going into the vegan community and spreading hate and downvotes just for the sake of hatred, because they saw some vegans being vegans. Usually there's some reason for it.
One thing that definitely does happen is people from that minority community going out and picking fights with the wider community, and then beginning to make a whining sound when the reaction is negative, and claiming that the heat they're getting is because of their viewpoint, and not because they're being obnoxious. That happens quite a lot.
I think some of the instances that police and ban dissent set up a bad expectation for their users. People from there feel like their tribe is being attacked if they have to come into contact a viewpoint that they're been told is the "wrong" one, and then they make these blanket proclamations about how their own point of view is God's truth while attacking anyone who disagrees, and then they sincerely don't expect the hostile response that they get. I think some of them sincerely feel silenced when that happens. I don't know what to do about that other than be transparent and supportive about where the door to being able to post is, if they want to go through it, and otherwise minimizing the amount that they can irritate everyone else for as long as that's their MO.
It definitely does that. It just uses a more sophisticated metric for "value" than a hard-coding of which are the good communities and which are the bad ones.
I think the configuration options to give more weight or primacy to certain communities are still in the code. I'm not sure. I do see what you're saying. I think it might be wise for me, if anyone does wind up wanting to play with this, to give as many tools as possible to moderators who want to use it, and just let them make the decision. I think the bot is capable of working without needing configuration which ones are the good communities, but if someone can replicate my checking into it, they'll be happier with the outcome whether or not they wind up with the same conclusions as me.
And yes, definitely making it advisory to the moderators, instead of its own autonomous AI drone banhammer, will increase people's trust.