Blocked

I fully agree. What worries me is if bad actors create bots that are able to overwhelm the human moderators.

Yes, strong moderation by members of the community is sufficient to recognize and remove bad (human) actors. The question is one of volume and overwhelming those human mods. GPT can create hundreds of bad-faith accounts.

Mods and admins on the Fediverse are not democratically elected, they have complete control. Accusing one of “power tripping”, in their own community, on the instance they presumably pay for, is not a rational accusation, since they definitionally cannot exist in a state of less power. What that community is trying to do is use the threat of public shaming to influence behavior. It’s how you get weak moderation and generic communities where bad actors can thrive. A community dedicated to “Stopping bad mods” sounds good on the surface, but it’s an argument made in bad faith.

Why are you putting up with a “shitty” mod? Are you trying to force your speech in a community who has asked you not to?

Great response, thank you. My concern is more so focused on future measures; what happens if/when registration applications are answerable by a bot? It’s not hard to imagine. What happens when a GPT powered bot leaves totally “normal” unique comments 90% of the time, but occasionally recommends a product or pushes a political agenda?

“Power tripping mods” definitionally cannot exist on the fediverse where anyone can create an instance or community. Even on Reddit, 99% of the time someone said a mod was “power tripping” it was just a right winger upset that the mod removed their disruptive nonsense.

The purpose of communities like the one you linked to is to shame mods into employing a passive, generic bare-minimum style of moderation, when we should be encouraging the opposite if we want diversity in the fediverse.

What’s the incentive to operate an LLM on the fediverse that is truly helpful and not just trying to secretly sell something/push an agenda?

Interesting that Kim Dotcom blames the MAGA boogeyman “deep state communists” for his persecution and celebrated Trump’s win, while Trump’s supreme court is currently poised to force ISPs to crack down on bittorrent traffic. I don’t expect intelligence form Dotcom, but does he really think a conservative oligarchy is going to be friendlier to the users of decentralized anti-corporate protocols?

The only reasons countries like Russia and china don’t police piracy is because not doing so hurts US corporate interests, not because they love free speech and want to enable circumvention of government-enforced censorship.