I can’t draw anything, unfortunately. I feel like I can picture him pretty well though.

Something being a social construct has nothing to do with its importance. There are many social constructs that are extremely important, and many that are less so.

I’m opposed to capitalist exploitation but don’t you think that’s a bit tangential here? Like we don’t see this sort of hand-wringing about buying a video game console.

Personally I try not to participate in capitalist consumption more than necessary, so I wouldn’t buy a skull for that reason. But that’s not why this upsets people. Otherwise they wouldn’t be constantly buying new clothes, gadgets, etc. to amuse them. Those industries are if anything more likely to exploit and harm people, so focus your scrutiny there if you are so concerned with the global workers.

This reminds me of the fake concern for sex workers that is used to shun and exile them from polite society. Yes, sex-workers are exploited, but when you’re using that exploitation as a shield for your real agenda, that needs to be examined critically.

We are beasts. The separation between humans and animals is pure mythology. This idea is part of that myth.

Does it matter? I understand this could be emotionally sensitive for some people but the only reason I could see this being relevant is if my purchase somehow induced more slavery or genocide. That seems very unlikely—in fact I can think of a number of common purchases people make all the time without a second thought that are far more likely to encourage such crimes.

This is where I disagree with the rest of society. Dead people are dead and don’t have rights, so I don’t see how most skulls would be unethical.

So the real question is will it upset the living and how much do you want to accommodate those people’s feelings? I’m not sure there’s a clear and unambiguous answer to this question.

Yes, the complexity is certainly one of the downsides to what I’m proposing, which is one reason why I was curious if people thought the complexity would be manageable. Sounds like you think not?

Just to clarify, my thought is to leave this up to users/admins to choose their own algorithm, which would transparently describe how things are weighted. For me, I would like to weigh factual information most highly, then kindness, with raw popularity at the bottom. But others might feel differently, especially if there were even more types of reactions than the three main categories I described.

For new users or those who don’t understand the system, it would be fine to have a default sort, maybe configurable by your instance. It could be as simple as just adding up the positive and negative votes, which would make it identical to the current system, or we could just guess at some different weights. Let me people try them out—not everyone will engage but I hope enough would to help iron out the wrinkles and see what works best.

The reason I included the negative reactions is to help distinguish between unpopular but constructive content, which I believe is very valuable in disrupting the echo-chamber effect, and content that is actually just bad, rude, insulting etc. and not contributing to anything.

Often, when there are guidelines on how to vote in platforms or communities they instruct people not to downvote for mere disagreement but people do it anyway. So by separating the disagree downvote from the “this is just objectively bad” vote, I think this can help curate a more positive environment. The goal is that if a comment or post is getting more than a few of those reactions, it should be hidden or maybe even flagged for moderation. But posts that are merely unpopular can stay as long as they are factual and polite.

Interesting that you say that, because I was imagining that each type of vote could be represented by a different emoji. I think people would get it if we picked the right ones. But care would be needed to avoid those that could have multiple meanings.

Maybe something like this:

Agree - 👍

Disagree - 👎

Friendly/kind (not sure the best word) - 🫂

Hostile/rude - 🤬

Factual or insightful -💡

Incorrect - ❌

You could add others but those seem like the most common and useful signals I would want to send while voting.

Another idea would be to just open it up and let people use any emoji to react. Some platforms already do this but it can get more confusing in terms of how to interpret and incorporate all of that information into ranking algorithms.

When I first joined Lemmy, I made a really big effort to make my interactions more positive than they were on Reddit. But the problem is that this required effort, and I am afraid over time my resolve might have eroded as the fediverse became just another online space instead of something new and distinct. This is a good reminder, but I wonder if this solution of just trying to be better is really sustainable for me or others? I’ll keep trying but we may need a more concrete change to get where we want to go.

I am curious if it’s time to evolve user engagement beyond up and downvotes. While they were relatively innovative at the time they were introduced, it’s been some years and we’re still here using the same system.

The biggest problem with voting as content curation is that people vote to communicate very different ideas and reactions in different circumstances. So people are sending the same signal to a well-researched, respectful but dissident perspective and to content that is rude, violent, hateful, incorrect etc.

This could be solved by allowing more diverse reactions. People will always want an agree or disagree button, so give them that. But we could also vote on how factual a post is, how polite a post is, how uplifting a post is, etc. We could then build algorithms that prioritize quality content instead of just the current popularity contest. Ideally I’d like multiple transparent algorithms that the user can choose from (or leave a default chosen by their instance) so that users can choose what kind of content is most valuable to them.

One concern is whether this would be too complicated for people to understand or engage with properly. I’d be curious to hear what others think: would this just devolve into upvotes and downvotes again or could this be a better system?

What do you mean by support? Like ideological support or more direct support?

It’s weird because I also commented in that thread and my comments were arguably more confrontational. But I didn’t get banned for whatever reason.

They did say I would be banned in any socialist space for truthfully talking about the history of Leninism but they didn’t actually do it.

The tankie takeover of online left spaces is a problem but I’m not sure what to do about it. I guess try to politely point out that it’s not just a harmless difference of opinion whenever it comes up in more neutral spaces. Their preferred system means the murder of dissidents. That’s not what left politics should be about. And maybe try to create more open and non-violent left spaces where the truth can be discussed.

I respect Nate Silver’s analysis when it comes to polling but I don’t think his divisions of the modern left make a lot of sense. Frankly, I think the left wing is way too fractured to make these types of generalizations about. He’s accurately describing at least some people on the left. But what proportion of the progressive/far left coalition does this actually apply to? To me it seems to be just one faction among several.

Perhaps I am biased because I don’t really fit into the categories he has outlined, nor do most people I know. But it seems like a huge oversimplification (and a mildly demeaning one at that).

This is really just factually inaccurate though. Modern US liberals are actually further to the left than they were during the bush era, and are nowhere near as far right as the bush administration. (not sure about Reagan because that was before my time but I suspect it was similar). Democrats during that era were just coming off of the very centrist Clinton administration, and have gradually been moving left ever since.

The difference is the people criticizing liberals have become much more numerous and moved much further to the left than core democrats. Which is largely a good thing but I think it would help them be more strategic if they actually understood these things clearly.

I’m surprised they haven’t re-federated by now. I kind of got the impression it would be temporary during the main Reddit migration but I guess not. I really like the beehaw community but it definitely seems inconvenient to not be able to access all of those bigger communities on world and shjw.

I like how we phrase this as “better education” and “better career opportunities for women”. While technically true relative to poor countries, these explain nothing about why fertility rates are so low. They are related, but framing them differently will help us understand.

Why do people have fewer kids? Because economic life in most developed countries is relatively unstable, and to ensure economic stability, we require people to develop years of education and work experience to receive a comfortable salary. In many places we now require two such incomes. This mean women really don’t have a choice but to pursue advanced education and work, whether they want to or not. And we are not willing to accommodate children during education or work. This means women (and increasingly men too) are severely penalized economically for having children, and so of course people will have far fewer on average.

Another likely factor is the atomized nature of the modern family. Many people need to move to distant places for work, severing their direct ties to family and community. Human mothers aren’t well equipped to raise children solo, and even two parents is a stretch if you have 2+ kids. In past times we always relied on neighbors and extended family to help keep an eye on the youngsters and to teach parents the skills they need to do it right.

If you look at the very wealthy, there is some evidence that they have higher fertility, though I couldn’t find good data on this so take it with a grain of salt. But they have access to enough money to buy personalized childcare, which solves almost all of the above issues.

In developing countries, children often mean free labor and form the basis of your retirement through elder care, so while the economic conditions are of course worse overall, the opposite incentives exist. Another factor is that poor, agricultural societies are almost always extremely patriarchal, which tends to lead to high (involuntary) fertility.

In my view, egalitarian economic reforms will help bring fertility rates in all countries towards a healthy moderate level.

I’d say largely neutral. Progressives don’t love her because she was a prosecutor. She has a bit of a reputation for opportunism and lacks charisma but pretty standard democrat overall.

I still don’t get how to actually use peertube beyond links that other people post here on Lemmy.

From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel.

-MisterNeon

So all of these answers have some truth to them, but they are also missing a key factor. The heritage foundation exists because they are paid tons of money by billionaires to sit around and come up with ways to strengthen their dominance over society. The left simply doesn’t have many supporters with that level of wealth. While it’s possible to do this on a voluntary basis it’s a lot harder than getting paid to do it.