Do you unironically believe Martin Luther King Jr. wanted Barry Goldwater to win when he increased his civil rights protest organizing in defiance of Lyndon B Johnson during the lead up to the 1964 presidential election?

[Image Description: Anakin Skywalker on Lava Planet, block-face text “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy”]

As stated elsewhere in the thread, my vote audit shows no participation from any of the 29 banned sock accounts the in the !news feedback thread, or this one for that matter. Please take the votes more seriously. If you’d like to spread FUD about the legitimacy of a vote, ask an admin to audit them first so you can state with evidence that a specific vote has been manipulated.

People trust the software to tell them what others are thinking, and if you successfully spread the false idea that votes that disagree with you are manipulated, you’re not just arguing in bad faith, you’re undermining the federated system we should all want to succeed.

Props to the LW admin who uncovered and banned the vote manipulation ring. Its existence is troubling.

I did a vote audit of the Soliciting Feedback from the Mods thread, and none of the sock accounts that were banned three days ago voted on the post or the most highly upvoted or downvoted comments. If you don’t believe me, I suggest asking an admin you trust to repeat the audit.

The outrage about the bot seems extremely organic, and any sockpuppetting going on is small compared to the overwhelming number of legitimate accounts casting votes that are apparent from the logs. The uniformity of the consensus does not appear to be artificial at all.

Rule 1 Ban Count: 5

• @LagrangePoint@lemmy.world (Permaban)
• @aniki@lemmings.world (15 day ban)
• @catloaf@lemm.ee (15 day ban)
• @DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org (Permaban)
• @stormesp@lemm.ee (15 day ban)

Not a good look, mods.

I want the bot gone but didn’t downvote the post. I support the mods reaching out for feedback, and also downvoting could decrease the visibility of the bot’s overwhelming negative reception.

Yes, they are very nice to express solidarity with Vegans and VeganTheoryClub.

The news mod team has asked to no longer be a part of the project until we have a composite tool that polls multiple sources for a more balanced view.

Thank you. It is often difficult to change course once it is set. I appreciate the !news team reaching out to the community and acting on their concerns.

I’ve experienced Rooki acting inappropriately and immaturely as well. This recent incident is part of a pattern of behavior.

VeganTheoryClub

I’m going to be fine without Lemmy, it’s not worth much.

That’s not the conclusion I’d like you to draw. I’m an admin of a Lemmy instance. I wouldn’t volunteer so much of my time if I didn’t think Lemmy was valuable.

Lemmy.World has a central role in the Threadiverse, but not an essential one. Sh.itjust.works, Lemm.ee, Reddthat.com or another general instance could easily take over that role if the consensus determines that Lemmy.World doesn’t deserve it. Beehaw.org is the largest instance to de-federate from LW, and if things continue or get worse, LW’s admin’s actions may result in a re-ordering of the Threadiverse structure. Lemmy.World is not the same as the Theadiverse.

This is a radical option that is not possible in any corporate form of social media. If it occurs or the specter of it instigates the LW admins to relent, it would be a huge victory for democracy on the Threadiverse. A Lemmy instance can’t exist without its hosts and admins, but it also relies on the consensus of its commenters, posters, and voters. This gives you as a participant unprecedented control of how the communities that you build engage with the news and the world.

They’ve also removed comments critical of the bot. And ignored the overwhelming negative feedback and the consensus that the bot should be removed when they’ve opened the discussion up to the community.

I’d be satisfied if my criticism changed the mods minds, but at this point they are not my target audience. My goal in these comments is to inform those who are on the fence about why the bot is a bad idea, and signal boost the consensus that the bot’s assessments are illegitimate.

!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com has an interesting take on this.

MBFC claims CNN is Left-Center, when it is owned by conservative billionaire John Malone, one of the largest landlords in the world. Lemmy.World mods need to stop feeding flak organizations like MBFC. Corporate propaganda is harmful to democracy.

More evidence the Australian government doesn’t care about Australian citizens.

Not just any bot spam - the most downvoted spam in Lemmy history. It is now more unpopular than the most popular Lemmy account is popular.

Wow, you’re really reaching there. I’m asking you to stop blaming women for men’s problems. There’s a group of people who aren’t doing that, and if you don’t want to be called a misogynist, follow the example of that group.

I think you misunderstood me. I do think men should have an analogous space. I support !mensliberation@lemmy.ca 100%.

If you didn’t misunderstand me, men don’t need a space specifically for comparing their issues negatively against women’s issues. That space is everywhere and anywhere, as evidenced by this discussion occurring in !asklemmy@lemmy.world and collecting overwhelmingly positive upvotes.

We had to shutter !twoxchromosomes@slrpnk.net because of persistent and vocal judgement by a large population of Lemmy users, many specifically from Lemmy.World. So no, talking about issues specific to their gender is definitely not a double standard where men get the short end of the stick.

This is why you get judged. Because you so nakedly put on display how much ignorance and little empathy you have for women’s issues.

!mensliberation@lemmy.ca exists specifically for men who understand their issues in society are intersectional with women’s issues, and that solving them requires uniting to end patriarchy. Any discussion outside of that framing deserves the assumption that it’s a misogynist men’s pity party.

This is not a case of copy/pasting the same comment in multiple threads. Please look closer at the comments and the reports. One comment is repeated once, but that is due to it being topical to MBFC’s take on the BBC, and both articles were from the BBC.

Also, I’m alarmed you consider contextualization of MBFC in comments that reply to the Bot as ‘off-topic.’ The Bot created the topic of MBFC’s credibility by linking to it as an authoritative source. If a comment about the credibility of the BBC in reply to an article published by the BBC is on-topic, then a comment about the credibility of MBFC as a reply to a review published by MBFC is also on-topic.