Conversely, I don't consider having a machine rapidly output media to impersonally proliferate your message to be a good faith interaction for your audience but I'm not the one with the banhammer

https://lemmy.world/post/29036642

Conversely, I don't consider having a machine rapidly output media to impersonally proliferate your message to be a good faith interaction for your audience but I'm not the one with the banhammer - Lemmy.World

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29035971 [https://lemmy.world/post/29035971] > Posting here for preservation’s sake > > Image in removed comment was the attached Palpatine image. Curious to see if the same admin mod would remove these screenshots if I crosspost them to [email protected] [/c/[email protected]] , which they also admin and mod. Would I get a fair trial there or will my dissenting and others’ be silenced? > > You can’t say you’re against disinfo if you’re knowing and intentionally promulgating it and abetting its usage. They also didn’t even remove the Reddit watermark. > > This is why I don’t assign identities unto myself, because you criticize one action done wrong by leaders of an ideology or movement and bam! you’re shut out of it completely. They’ve lost the aid of an ally and progress is impeded by being shorted a participant trying to correct the course.

I disagree with how a lot of that thread was moderated, and I do think that a permaban was a heavy-handed. Not that you weren’t necessarily entirely without fault.

I’d say it’s a combo of BPR and PTB

This is a copyleft, pro genAI instance. We don’t even agree that copyright or intellectual property is moral, let alone the argument tat keeps popping up that it’s “stealing”. Once you release an idea to the world, it becomes part of the human condition. It doesn’t belong to you, and saying you “own” something that’s a part of another person’s consciousness is akin to saying slavery is acceptable.

There are plenty of safe spaces for that neoliberal capitalist bullshit, but on an anarchist instance is not it. They deserved it, and I think it should be made into an instance-wide rule that anti-AI conversation be banned for being in direct contradictions to our morals and political philosophy, with repeat violators being banned.

I agreed until you got to the point that anti-AI conversation should be banned. And because I agreed up to that point, I think I joined the wrong instance. I could go along with y’all being pro-AI because im not inherently against it, just cautious as a person, knowing people abuse any kind of power far too often. And, I dont have to use AI in my life while still having anarchist beliefs. It’s a choice, so long as you hold no power and do no damage to others with your tools . . Banning conversation is holding power and using it against others, which is inherently not anarchy.

I guess the Anarchism I grew up with has changed. Bummer to hear.

This is banding together to defend our communities from those who would do us harm, That’s mutual aid, and there isn’t anything more anarchist than that. If you don’t agree, then you probably weren’t very aligned with anarchism in the first place.

I guess I don’t understand the correlation between banning speech that hurts no one, (a computer does not have feelings, nor is it sentient) and mutual aid? What barriers are you trying to collectively overcome by not allowing folks to discuss the benefits, risks and/or negatives of AI in our lives? It feels akin to someone telling me global warming and climate change arnt real so I should fuck off, I don’t belong, that speech is banned.

Anarchism is older than AI, I guess that’s where I feel the shift, and I only feel it here. Being new to lemmy, these two Incorporated ideas, I’ve never seen together before.

Side tangent, so you know where i am coming from. My definition of Anarchism stems from the early 90’s punk scene. In the late 90s, I was taught some of my computer literacy from a man who once hacked the KKK website back when, and made a mockery of it, told me he held the domain for so many months. His probation wouldn’t even allow him access to a land line it was absurd. He showed me how to use IRC, and I thought it was incredible, and glorious. That was freedom, of course until the power caught on. Even then, we persist.

I don’t understand how discussing the dangers of AI is withholding anyone’s freedom, nor do I understand how banning the speech is mutual aid.

I guess I can understand you want to protect your group of folks from people constantly questioning something you strongly believe in. But my previous questions stand. If you are up to it, feel free to enlighten me, I am an old goat these days, and I really am curious.

I guess I don’t understand the correlation between banning speech that hurts no one, (a computer does not have feelings, nor is it sentient) and mutual aid? What barriers are you trying to collectively overcome by not allowing folks to discuss the benefits, risks and/or negatives of AI in our lives? It feels akin to someone telling me global warming and climate change arnt real so I should fuck off, I don’t belong, that speech is banned.

There’s a big difference between discussing the pro/cons of something, and brigading communities on a pro-AI instance to push your own agenda. As of this moment, people have already been banned in the last 24 hours for vote manipulation, and more than one person has spun up alts to comment and vote on topics they’ve already put in their word on.

There’s a very simple word to describe what’s happening to db0, and that word is an attack. When you’re attacked, you defend yourself. Nobody is banning anti-AI speech, we’re banning it here. This instance does not represent the entirety of the fediverse. Nobody banned here is being kept from posting that speech literally anywhere else.