Without a functioning government that actually prioritizes public health, there is no ridding ourselves of either. Towards the bottom of the article is a link to a document put together by the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab in partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center titled “Not Just a Joke” which helps to explain the problem, frame it through a public health lens, and provide broad tips for intervention at various levels of social support. Like most public health crises, there is not a simple “answer” to a complex problem and the best solution is to provide resources to a variety of places recognizing that each of them touch lives in unique ways and that each of them will be able to help affect a positive change on some individuals based on who those individuals might be willing to listen to and trust.

While you are correct, and the author deserves to be called out on their behavior, the context of the entire article is around how they are struggling with being bombarded with things taking up their attention and time. This response is seriously lacking in any compassion for the author’s struggle and more or less ignores the entire point of the article in order. Beehaw isn’t the place for one-liner gotchas. Please try to engage with the content if you’re going to comment.

Eh frankly I just see us moving to more strict reputation based systems - someone has to vouch for you.

So how is an AI prompt poking for Holocaust denial different than a Google search looking for Holocaust denial?

Because one is something you have to actively search for. The other is shoved in your face, by a figure that many feel is one who has some authority.

Why are you defending anything about this situation? This is not a thread to discuss how LLMs work in detail, this is a thread about accountability, consequences, hate, and society.

also a need to fit in.

You probably shouldn’t make generalizations about an entire group of people based on your own gut feelings lol

Showing off personal beliefs through a “radical” appearance in the hope of eliciting a response from strangers.

That’s a particularly emotionally charged view on this. I think you’re spot on for those wearing MAGA hats, as openly declaring one’s political beliefs is hard to view as anything but as a hope to elicit a response from strangers, but equating that with rainbow hair is quite the stretch. Have you ever considered that those with rainbow hair might have it to signal to their own in-group that they are queer because this is not something immediately visible and can be a way to find community? Greasers, hippies, and punks also can widely follow this reasoning/purpose behind “flagging” oneself.

Definitely something I’ve observed even here. Luckily we get few applications and there is a report button, but I share the author’s frustration and the author’s jaded view of a limited timeline on services such as ours being tenable. Eventually it will be trivially easy to flood this place with slop.

say more about this, what do you mean?

gpt-4o was also used, check the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.18412

314m what a joke! Still, good to see them lose this court case

You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more

Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.

In what world is that even a plausible outcome of this news? This feels non-sequitur by its pure absurdity. If they had a list of 1000 things they can do with this database, that would not even be on the list.

I understand you are talking about something which either interests you or is a cause you care about, but we’re talking about monumental governmental surveillance by a president many scholars are calling a fascist. This is not the time nor the place to discuss such matters and trying to have that conversation could easily be read as dismissing the plentiful and obvious concerns around privacy and safety of the American public.

Already not a fan of Palantir, this is pretty bad news

This is covered under our only rule. Being explicit about any single bad behavior implies that we need to explicitly call out every possible not nice behavior and that is against the spirit of Beehaw. See the spirit of the rules and other documentation for more information on how we moderate. Keep reporting and we will keep removing.

wokepedia lmao what’s wrong with the world

Happy to have a conversation if you feel something was inappropriately removed. Our current workflow is to run questionable comments by a group with all moderators and admins before taking action. Nobody is perfect however, and we do occasionally make mistakes.

I’m glad to see a lot of different people trying different models. I don’t think microblogging really has the capability of being nontoxic, but who knows? Maybe they’ll succeed where everyone else has failed. I certainly know we’re trying to have nontoxic social media around here, and we have plenty of issues at a much smaller scale.

I understand why you might be upset based on how they made a rather sweeping statement about the comments without addressing any content. When they said “a bunch of sanctimonious people with too much appreciation for their own thoughts and a lack of any semblance of basic behaviour” it might strike many as an attack on the user base, but I’m choosing to interpret it through the lens of simply being upset at people who are not nice. I could be wrong, and perhaps @[email protected] can elaborate on exactly who and what they were talking about.

Regardless, let’s try our best to treat them in good faith. Don’t let your own biases shape how you interpret people or their language. Please try to ask clarifying questions first before jumping to the assumption that they are a right wing troll.