RE: https://social.coop/@scottjenson/116352522288234148
shameful junk
this is commercial UX posturing 101 that amounts to the complaint that generative AI positivity does not get engagement on mastodon.
"community", "inclusivity", "bring more voices", "marginalised communities"
the problem?
Mastodon lacks an algorithmic feed that boosts AI positivity posts
"The Mastodon team is finally getting some traction" is an important phrase to consider.
Mastodon has traction. It is an internet cockroach that will out last any other current social network.
But that kind of traction is not recognised in this context because this is not a good faith post made by a serious person
@fasterandworse "this is not a good faith post made by a serious person"
I worked with Scott at Symbian at the turn of the century. The issue is not so much that you're wrong (oh, you are) but that you seemingly believe that you're bringing something of value to others by publishing your ignorance.
He's one of the top most UX experts in tech for the last few decades, and as he has now retired he freely offers his time helping with UX in open source. He has no commercial motivations whatsoever, he's driven by the fact (and yes, it's a fact) that many open source projects don't have access to competent UX resources while commerical companies do.
He's not some AI proponent - he's one of the persons actively working with the Mastodon team on making our UX better.
You'll find his name here: https://joinmastodon.org/about
@troed @fasterandworse okay okay, that's nice, much previous credential very awe! I, too, am capable of looking up someone's past! (and in fact I did)
but again I ask you: can you argue _why_?
you make a substantive claim that someone else is wrong, with no argument as to why other than "bc he said so!", a naked appeal to (perceived) authority
if you want to argue a point, *argue a point*. bring your points, I'll bring the snacks!
Sorry, I was unaware that you didn't understand English. I can't help you then.
The facts answering the question were in the post I had already made. The reply was not made in good faith, which can be seen from other posts as well.
I don't debate trolls. Too old for that shit.
@troed @froztbyte @fasterandworse the "facts" in your post tell us what a principled, smart guy scott is. so now we know that if we we want to commit the fallacy of Argument From Authority, we can definitely use him as one.
now, perhaps you'd like to contribute to the actual debate?
Maybe it is you who think there's another debate that has nothing to do with my post?
This is what I replied to - OP's statement:
"this is not a good faith post made by a serious person"
My post factually describes both why 1) Scott's post was in good faith and 2) That he's a serious person.
If you don't get that - guess what.
@troed @froztbyte @fasterandworse it does not show either of those things, because, once again and as others have pointed out, you are using Argument From Authority.
"this is is very serious smart person! so he must have been serious and posted in good faith!"
no and goodbye.
@troed @fishidwardrobe @fasterandworse really? "omg, he was serious once!"? that's your _whole_ pitch?
you ....do realize.... that people can, like, fuck up over time? can make mistakes later?
are you really *that* Hung Up(tm) on your once-exemplary colleague, that you've made _this_ series of posts?
.....I'm sorry, I know the next bit is gonna hurt
Stephen Farrugia
Troed Sångberg
JP
Fish Id Wardrobe ⁂