I disagree that it’s “goddamn sad” when people get mad about others refusing to mitigate harm through votes, and cause irreparable damage instead. Loads of people have been using votes as a way to mitigate harm for decades now. They don’t have the luxury to do otherwise. What makes you so special? Why are you above reproach?

I think it makes sense to be mad about that. It’s awful to see a chance to prevent harm and refuse to. I won’t pretend it’s okay just because you think you can chunk up my post to dunk on select blurbs from it.

I do think they can make a better effort in their posts. I think you can, too.

Thanks for linking something actionable!

Also: it’s wild how many brands are just outsourced to these folks. It’s got to all be the same waffles, right? But I know the price difference between some of these brands is a stark one.

Stein can run AND you can be a dolt for voting for her AND we legally permit you to vote like a dingus, but (also legally) you go on a vote tally and we know how many dolts there were and we get to mock you as a small comeuppance for your ruination of everyone else’s attempt to improve our daily lives and those around us.

Not to suggest that we get to mock you specifically! Because we protect everyone in that way. SO FAR. But you’ll know who we’re mocking. Because we protect that, too.

SO FAR.

Hope that helps you make a better comment next time.

I agree and I’d take it one step further: it’s undesirable to play games with elaborate exploit / abuse guards. Those systems suck! They’re boring, same-y, and labyrinthine. I literally don’t care about pvp, or balance, or “winning”. It’s not that kind of game play

I have an idea. Why don’t I put a bunch of my website stuff in one place, say a pdf, and you screw heads just buy that? We’ll call it a “book”

What are you thinking of when you say “conversion rate”? Like, is the top of your funnel people who saw the endorsement, I guess? If so, I agree, 1% of those converting into voters seems like a reasonable expectation.

I am beginning to wonder if the person who keeps spamming this board with vapid third party posts and then refusing to ever engage in genuine non-adversarial discussion about them is deliberately trying to sour everyone here on third parties.

Like, a few months ago no one cared. Now though, EVERYONE is well armed with facts and opinionated as hell.

It’s probably the Streisand effect though! And it’s great to see.

I’m most excited where it’s most open. Clear training process, legal data sets, fully open code bases, published reports, etc. I think we’re going to see the local models boom in sophistication once that’s more common.

Do you know of any good local models that fit that kind of description?

Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.

This is what springs to mind for me as well. OP, you should try to remember this: the people around you are not as concerned with you as they are their own lives. And their own lives are probably pretty intense for them to deal with!

• Understanding other people’s lives might have intensity you don’t know about or understand is empathy. Displaying empathy will help you establish bonds with others and this is a good place to start.
• Say they do ostracize and dislike you. So what? Can they really even do anything about it? Should you even care? Probably not. It probably doesn’t matter at all. So you’ll have to deal with it for now, but they’ll move on and so will you.

Oh. My. God.

“Your desire to push out the thugs grinding our government’s ability to grow and change to a halt is an extremest view” sure is a weirdo take, isn’t it?

Honestly, as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize most voting is risk mitigation. I was brought up to think it was about making positive change but votes that do that are less common than the risk mitigation votes.

Oh! I think we agree, my apologies for misunderstanding you and talking past what you were saying.

It’s a convenient wedge issue because although no one disagrees, and Harris is the clear choice, people are very upset about it. That allows the topic to steer people away from reason and into raw emotion. That in turn allows the conversation to become a way to subvert the topic into a general negative sentiment that plants itself association with Harris.

It’s a good manipulation tactic, and you can observe that any dissent turns into a pithy back and forth quickly. That’s going to leave it in the conversation for good. Because we’ll get upset every time it comes up.

It’s a very cynical, awful thing to do. To take the genocide of a helpless people and only serve it when convenient as a wedge issue. But it works, so here we are, talking about them but only when people want to take pot shots at specific politicians.

Indexable content is a good idea objectively, but Lemmy will never “be Reddit”. Sometimes something is just lost.

If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.

What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.

I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.

In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.

It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.

Yeah I’m reaching with the mail thing. Only because I’ve seen decent results with it. But, not great - Oregon is still just 62% turnout or so and I don’t think they’re sporting better than average young vote numbers.

I agree that it’s a stupid reason not to even try, yeah. But unfortunately it bears out, like it’s one of the reasons why Bernie didn’t do well in the 2016 primaries. His support in younger demographics was striking, but their primary vote attendance was not.

I think the problem is voter suppression, though, and not the voters fault. Making it harder to vote hits younger people directly. Making it easier to do via mail would probably change that dynamic completely.