Claude.ai is quite a bit superior to GPT in my experience. That one, I pay for, and it seems like it's worth it.

Like I said, definitely still possible. It is certainly an action that you can take.

Sounds good. If you redid the import, I think you’ll want to make some manual fixes to the .json. Off the top of my head, I think you just need to add bbc.co.uk and aljazeera.com to the URL lists for those sources.

I never abused the report system. That was the mod of News abusing the rule, I only ever reported stuff hurled at me which never ever got removed even when it was very obvious personal attacks or other people doing exactly what I had a comment removed for.

Can you link to some examples of people abusing you? You don't have to spend a ton of time on it if you don't want to. I'm just curious.

Moderation is never completely fair. It can't be. I'm just saying that by some coincidence, the moderators that interacted with you are some of the only ones who I tend to agree with a lot of the time.

And I 100% will admit that I’ve called for the removal of Israel. I don’t view that as the negative FlyingSquid does.

It's not just FlyingSquid. I think calling for "removing" Moscow, or Washington, or Israel, or Gaza, or Ukraine, for whatever reasons of geopolitical argument, would lead to your removal from most communities outside of the instances that tend to get defederated.

You can hold whatever views you want, but surely breaking the community rules on purpose by speaking about them, and then getting banned, isn't a confusing outcome.

I moderate differently than I comment. Moderation for me is only about removing spam etc or obvious bad actors, people voting are what determines what’s visible not what I’ve decided should be allowed.

Maybe so. It could work fine. Definitely having you be a member of the community instead of someone coming from above, and open about what you're doing and why, is a step in the right direction. I'm just saying that moderation is hard and thankless work that is going to bring you into contact with a lot of obnoxious people, and refraining from becoming obnoxious or unfair yourself, as you deal with that day in and day out, is a lot more difficult than it seems like it would be.

!globalnews@lemmy.zip and !politics@sh.itjust.works are the best news communities I'm aware of.

Especially with "scaled" sorting, there's no real downside to subscribing to any number of them, but if I had to pick one for each category, those would be the ones. Mostly, my metric is that interesting stories reliably come across the feed without a lot of dreck.

"This magazine is not receiving updates" is why it's out of sync. It's no different than a Lemmy instance which isn't syncing updates from a community. You'll be able to see the community, and sometimes see some content on it, but it'll be missing most of the votes. Also, when you first subscribe to a community, you'll get a handful of recent posts, but none of the votes, so you'll see content with the voting all wrong.

Mbin might also be flaky about syncing with Lemmy instances, but that's not the reason in this case that the votes are out of sync.

I looked over the votes for a couple of the posts in !world@quokk.au. I've seen voting in that past that seemed faked, but nothing in this community jumped out at me.

As much as I'm in favor of a !world community that isn't on lemmy.world, because there's clearly some kind of rot going on there, I'm not sure how good an idea it is to have someone who's habitually gotten their own stuff banned in the past be the boss of a new community. He didn't get banned for tangling with the mods, he got banned for advocating violence, abusing the report feature, and things like that.

Of course, diversity is good, obviously. Let's see what he does with it.

Maybe it could be addressed with cryptographically-signed votes

That is how it works, I believe. Each vote has to be signed by the actor of the user that voted.

There have been people who did transparent vote-stuffing by creating fake accounts en masse and get detected, because they were using random strings of letters for the usernames. Probably it's happened more subtly than that and not been detected sometimes, too, but it's not quite as simple as just reporting a high number.

Apology accepted. Have a good one.

https://ponder.cat/comment/592277

I propose to give this article the zero amount of attention it deserves, and instead, to spend the comments talking about how to help get people out to vote.

I signed up yesterday with votefwd.org, and I'm planning on spending some time on it, as soon as they verify my signup. I've already turned in my ballot, but there's still time to motivate some other people, and influence the outcome that way.

Edit: Somebody reported my comment. "Spam or abuse." I think that means I'm doing something right. I downloaded my first packet of 5 letters to send out, but I don't think this is the most efficient way to have the impact I'm trying to have.

I'm going to send them out, but it feels like grabbing the voter registration data for registered Democrats in swing states, and randomly sending out hand-signed but machine-printed letters that I've crafted, is going to be a lot more efficient. That, I can do by the hundreds. I don't really know what I'm doing. Is there some other good way to do what I'm trying to do?