Phew, lucky that there's no disagreement in this society about what right and wrong is and what should and shouldn't be tolerated. Otherwise we might devolve into two antagonistic political factions mutually condemning each other.
ArcticPrincess
joined 1 year ago
Okay, how do you assess that harm has occurred?
I claim that your post just harmed me. You should be excluded from the social contact.
You violated the rules my god laid down. Harmful to me and all my fellow believers. You're out.
Your flagrant homosexuality is harming my children. Excluded.
Your campaign to take away my guns is harming me and all my descendants. I was just minding my own business until you came along with your intolerant gun removal policies. Excluded! Burn him.
This only solves the dilemma in a trivial way, if harm is transparent and uncontentious. It doesn't address the real dilemma, which is widespread disagreement about what should and shouldn't be tolerated.
The perfect colinearity of most of the lines is very suspicious too.
Allow me to introduce: Firefox vim keybindings extensions. So many more shortcuts if you don't need to worry about typing characters in normal mode.
A friend of mine just used it to write a script for an Amazing Race application video. It was quite good.
How the heck did it access enough source material to be able to imitate something that specific and do it well? Are we humans that predictable?
They have a pretty detailed discussion section. The main hypothesis they support, based on plenty of other evidence, is that these drugs increase appetite. They motivate you to eat more calories, even though they contain fewer calories themselves.
What!? That makes no sense.
They saw an association between sweetener intake and change in fat over 25 years. Not relative to the population, relative to their past selves. How would a weight loss tool increasing your body fat over 25 years be obvious?
Putting the recovery center on top of the perfect hill for rolling down...
Fair enough, but that still doesn't address the problem for people who do want to be on a large server---full of many people who share their cat meme interests---and see mostly high quality content.
Wanting to be in a forum with thousands or millions of other enthusiasts is a legitimate use case for this kind of social media platform. In that use case, I don't know of any other way but voting to efficiently filter low quality content. "Just leave" avoids the problem rather than solving it, by denying people the opportunity to do the thing that most people go to Reddit for: to be part of huge communities and just see the good threads and comments.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for genuinely engaging, by the way.
I worry that the mechanisms you describe might not work as the number of users gets large. Check out "Eternal September" if you don't know about it already. Niche forums might be able to run like that just because they will never have too many members. For forums which many people are interested in (e.g., cat memes), this might not be possible. They may need a mechanism for high-grading content.
Are you willing to accept the assumption that bad content (e.g., spam, advertising, trolling, low effort posts) is far more common than good content (I.e.., high effort posts)?
If you are, then it seems to me that your system would involve a lot more people interacting with a lot more bad content than they do good content. Down votes are a mechanism that let's one person's time wasted interacting with bad content reduce the probability that everyone else will have to waste their time on that content.
If it were easy, there wouldn't be this much disagreement.