I’ll start it off:
- Windows is a perfectly fine OS, as long as you use Enterprise or Server (Home and Pro are crap)
- Self driving cars are the future since the US won’t fully embrace mass transit
I agree with the hivemind’s general direction, but I really hate its absolutist thinking style, which dictates:
- Every issue has exactly two sides: the Right side and the Wrong side, and they’re extreme opposites.
- Nuances don’t exist; if you think they do you’re just shilling for the Wrong Side.
- Moral and ethical purity are expected of everyone, zero tolerance, no allowance for human weakness - and if you don’t agree then obviously you would forgive Hitler for “human weakness”.
- Everybody is the worst person they’ve ever been. If you cured cancer and brought about world peace, you’d still be a piece of shit for Liking a misogynistic tweet in 2015, and so is anyone who hasn’t taken you off their Friend list and spat on you.
Reminds of that tone time on reddit i got a mod warning about being misogynistic for not liking Jane Austen novels… it extends to even your preferences in media.
Also depends on individual mods, some of whom seem to interpret the job as being the thought police rather than helping the community run smoothly and be a good experience.
Yes the lack of subtly in the thinking here can be really jarring sometimes
The mindset that treats AI like the bubonic plague. It’s not something that should be avoided. If used properly, it can be a great asset for people.
AI is just a tool, and you shouldn’t blame it for humans’ misuse of it. Instead, we should treat it like other tools: as something to use for appropriate situations/tasks.
The “if used properly” is the hard part: AI is good for simple tasks, like organizing and labeling things. However, as of 2026, AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
TL:DR: My point is that AI isn’t inherently bad, like many people make it out to be. Instead, it’s how humans use it that can make it bad.
I fully agree with you.
I stated something similar a week ago or so and had one dude going nuts. I mean nuts;
- Spamming “fuck you” towards me.
- Saying I was bad at coding (he had no idea that I didn’t even care because, in fact I can’t code and never cared to learn).
- Saying my opinion does not matter (as if his opinion was superior lol).
No idea who the guy was, skimmed the comments and immediately blocked him. I thank Lemmy every day for having a infinite blocklist possibility.
I’m fairly Anti-AI, but some people here definitely have a ridiculously absolutist stance towards it, which seems to be getting more common. Like if AI was used to fix a bug in otherwise human-written code for a videogame? That game is now slop and needs to be shunned apparently. If cancer was cured with the help of AI, I’m sure that medicine would be slop too and they’d refuse it like JWs refuse whole blood transfusions.
but some people here definitely have a ridiculously absolutist stance towards it
I was talking to a guy on here who was comparing AI to nuclear bombs.
I think people blame AI for incompetent management, which is like blaming a saw for bad carpentry. AI doesn’t force employees to use it whether it’s appropriate or not - managers do that. AI isn’t building massive datacenters regardless of impact - executives are doing that.
I agree with this.
I use AI at work, it has significantly improved my productivity, it does the shit mundane stuff (like transferring information into new corporate templates) leaving me to concentrate on the actual job I need to do.
AI is not sufficient for tasks involving creativity like art and music. It doesn’t capture that human aspect yet (It could in the future).
There’s a dismissive take on AI creating art that “AI can never create a truly great work of art or tell a truly compelling story.” I worry less about that, since those are really subjective stances to take on a given work; one person’s La Dolce Vita is another’s Dude, Where’s My Car? and vice versa.
What I want us to worry about is: What are we going to do to protect human dignity, even if there’s no profit motive in it? Sure, maybe an AI screenwriter could someday write a movie that people would want to see, but why should that mean that human screenwriters should have to starve even more than they currently do? If we can automate a large percentage of all human labor, does that mean that we’re just going to render most humans unemployable and not change anything else, because that’s what the invisible hand demands? Or are we going to have a serious conversation about how human dignity has value, in and of itself, and totally separate from our ability to increase GDP?
Sure… but I’d like for them to make some sort of amends for stealing all the content on the internet to make it?
And I’d like content made by AI to have that declared so consumers can support human artists and avoid grifters.
It’s interesting to see the collision of academic mindsets with the proliferation of AI. I largely agree with you: if something uses public data it should be offered as a public good.
It makes sense to me why it happened, though. Growing up, I always had the expectation that the stuff I put on the Internet would be there forever and basically used in ways that I wouldn’t expect. I didn’t feel the need to tell people what they could and could not learn from my posts and whatever tiny amount of learning I impart on a person feels perfectly analogous to whatever tiny amount of weight updates I’ll provide to a model.
Academia felt very similar to me. We put out papers because we found the subjects interesting. We didn’t make money from them (public funding) and people would build things on what we learned. It felt like a good model. Everyone shares the knowledge.
My biggest beef with AI isn’t that they trained on the Internet, it’s that they trained on the Internet and kept the result for themselves.
I hate AI for reasons™ but the constant whining about AI makes me think it’s probably not that bad. I might be 14yo contrarian.
Well since US elections wrapped up yesterday, I’ll go with lemmy.world having the memory of a bacterium and thinking everything is gonna magically get better because dems have control of congress.
Are you saying that the Democrats, who in the past did nothing to rectify the wrongs of Trump, will do nothing to rectify the wrongs of Trump? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you!
No you don’t understand, everything is fine now. The right folks are in power, we can go back to brunch.
My experience has been different. Lemmy thinks nothing will get done because they think Dems are still corrupt. But the difference is these progressives got elected even by not taking PAC money. The progressive Dems are also much more aggressive than their neoliberal colleagues. So, I think more things will get done than under the establishment Democrats. I think Americans are still just getting used to progressive Democrats because they haven’t had one in decades since the New Deal.
Anyone referring to Lemmy as a hive mind is an immediate red flag. It’s just a coping mechanism people use to feel better about their unpopular opinions. “It’s not that many individuals independently evaluated my take and disagreed with it, it’s the hive mind!” Might as well start calling those who disagree with you NPC’s.
I think you’re being too sensitive. Obviously there are some opinions that are overrepresented here, and that’s a real undenyable thing you’ll have in any community, and that’s what OP is asking about. Hivemind makes for a more catchy title than “opinions held by either a majority or at least a very vocal subset of the community”.
It’s a catchier title specifically because it taps into the narrative that you’re one of the few bucking the system, awake from the matrix, unlike all the cattle that surround you.
Like, I don’t always think it’s a big deal per se, I love slang and poetry, but I do side eye people who use that verbage a bit. It lacks respect for the people around you.
The younger people, by the way, call this “hivemind thing you might disagree with” a “hot take.” Sizzling, even. That’s catchy enough, I’d say.
Chill out man you’re overthinking this
… Sigh, okay, I will shorten it for you: Calling people a hivemind makes you look like the trenchcoat-wearing nerd in Grandma’s Boy.
👍 if you say so
Lemmy was huge on Proton, even after their dickbag CEO openly supported conservative billionaire talking points.
The few of us who condemned Proton got downvoted to hell everytime we brought up why. Now, the Proton spell seems to finally be breaking, thankfully. But that was fkn crazy, Lemmy. Seriously. My trust for the Lemmy zeitgeist has seen better days.
If it makes you feel better, they were off my list a long time before the ceo crap.
It was the fact they make you pay to use a 3rd party calandar app. Even microslop allows that. (At the time, I didn’t see email service was locked down too. I hadn’t gotten that far lol.)
The ceo just made sure I never consider buying their service.
voting third party is taboo
being vegan is too radical
- PeerTube is an alternative to YouTube.
Yeah, it’s just not. The disgusting monitizing on YouTube is what makes content creators post there.
There is very good content on PeerTube, but I can’t fucking find it, and when I do, it’s not exclusive, so I might as well watch it on YouTube where the creator gets paid and where it’s easier to happen upon with a regular search and not having to build a feed from various more or less federated sources. As much as I want to, it’s simply too difficult to use.
I really really want an alternative to YouTube, but I think this one needs a complete rethinking of what the service is supposed to do and how it can be done. Not from a developer point of view, but building from the user experience.
Sadly any competition to YT has a double high barrier to entry:
First, they need to be able to pay content creators more than they would get on YT. That’s pretty damn hard.
Second, they need the infrastructure to support it. CDNs, petabytes of storage, it’s not just something small to host.
Each one by themselves could bankrupt a company and you need both at a minimum to be competitive.
Yeah. Video is actually a shitty format. It costs something to make, host and serve.
More often than not it would be easier to write a forum post in a few kilobytes describing the worthwhile content.
use Enterprise or Server
Still has the Xbox play firewall rules baked in from home/pro, is only QA tested by the crappy insider hub who only use home/pro, and eats just as many resources as home/pro.
Server meanwhile is still propped up by the futuristic technology of AD straight out of 2003.
Enterprise doesn’t even add anything compared to pro aside from like a couple of apps/tools default installed that you can also get on windows education. It’s literally just a business licence so that MSFT can charge more for businesses that have a much larger budget.
You didn’t read the question, did you?
I did, I just wanted to respond to your example seperatley anyway lol
AI is the devil, humanity is doomed, parents are evil / selfish / idiotic for having kids, cars shouldn’t exist no matter what, the list goes on…
Also, 99% of the population here is Western. Nobody ever recalls that different cultures can have different opinions, different priorities, different cultural mores, etc — and I’m not talking about China vs US here. (I may still be a little salty about being temp banned for a ‘dogwhistle’ that’s nothing of the kind in Asia).
Sometimes I wonder why I’m still on Lemmy, the toxicity is pervasive and exceeds anything Reddit had.
Sometimes I wonder why I’m still on Lemmy, the toxicity is pervasive and exceeds anything Reddit
Had the same thought before but then I realized, Lemmy’s blocking system is infinite. So block anyone who is immensely toxic. Win-win.
It’s true, you gotta weed out the foaming extremists, then fruitful civil debate becomes possible.
The absolutism and the common thought process of “it’s obvious” often make me wonder how much of the lemmy community is angsty middle/high school students.
deleted by creator
People are generally too obsessed with the current thing and the news cycle rather than the bigger picture.
For example, I hate Trump for ICE, the Iran War, and affordability. I hated him for those things yesterday and I’ll hate him for those things tomorrow. But people seem to think there needs to be constant, wall-to-wall coverage about how every time he sneezes it’s the worst thing anyone’s ever done and his mucus is now defiling the dignity of the noble halls of blah blah blah. It’s counterproductive for so many reasons, first it lets the enemy control the focus, second people just get tired of hearing it, third it takes the focus away from the GOP in general, when Trump is a lame duck who’ll be gone soon anyway. And the shit about how he’ll cancel elections was always exaggerated and unrealistic, but it was taken as absolute fact, you had people being like, “Oh, you sweet Summer child,” and whatnot just if you acknowledged the midterms would happen. So now those people have egg on their face and someone might see that and think, “Oh, people were being alarmist, Trump isn’t as bad as people thought after all.”
Not me, though obviously. Because I still hate him for ICE, the Iran War, and affordability. The same reasons I hated him yesterday and the same reasons I will hate him tomorrow.
That’s part of the republican strategy for Trump. Firehose of bullshit, pretty sure Bannon and Epstein were talking about it in the epstein files.
“Everything is political” is technically true but usually pedantry for people who want to guilt trip people for not wanting to think about Donald Trump 24/7. You know what people mean when they say “apolitical,” stop playing dumb.
I agree that not everything is related to Donald Trump and America’s system of government.
I wish some subjects could be apolitical: there’s no reason for trans healthcare to be politicized while other healthcare is seen as a basic need. But as we know, even “healthcare is a basic need” is a topic of political discussion in some countries (cough). The choice to make it “apolitical” is itself a political act. So yes, everything is political. From the food you eat to the music you listen to.
I have a couple:
“Posting the same content to multiple comms is a bad”. Posting to multiple comms should be encouraged so long as it is relevant to each of them. The Threadiverse is federated and so there are many comms for the same or similar content, not every user is in or wants to join every single one. Your feed is yours and out should treat it as such, don’t complain that another user is ruining you’re feed because you decided to sort by new and are in multiple of the same or similar comms.
“.ml are all just trolls / tankies / bad”. The few trolls on .ml are given infinitely more weight than the genuine ML users, and the .world zionists and centre-right liberals are propped up as exemplary users despite constantly stoking a flame-war that most users don’t give a shit about. ML has just as much of a right to ban political dissidents from their comms as any other instance. Explicitly leftist instances exist for a reason and you don’t have to interact with them if you don’t agree.
This last one is more of a subconscious view within the “Lemmy hive mind”. The Lemmy defaultism gets exhausting (even if a minor grievance) and I wish “Lemmy” was reserved for things that are actually only relevant to Lemmy as opposed to using it as a general term for the threadiverse. I know that Lemmy was the first and is the largest and all, and it’s understandable that it would be seen as the default (similar to Mastodon for the microblogging side of things), but I wish there was more of a culture around getting users to stop referring to the whole federation as if it’s a single piece of software (similar to the culture on the microblogging side).
ML has just as much of a right to ban political dissidents from their comms as any other instance. Explicitly leftist instances exist for a reason and you don’t have to interact with them if you don’t agree.
I think the problem is that .ml doesn’t market itself as a leftist instance (anymore), and there’s nothing in the instance rules to imply that non-M-L aren’t allowed.
From what I’ve seen, if there’s even a slightly annoyed tone in the dissenting comment or post, they ban for rule 2, even if there’s another person in the thread screaming at them calling them all kinds of nonsense (but with the “correct” political opinion). Being disrespectful on .ml is fine, if you’re saying the right things.
If the person is incredibly polite, they often ban for rule 1 anyway.
Fair, I don’t see anywhere that they are explicitly marxist or leftist (though I feel like that should be obvious by the name). They do however, linked immediately above the screenshot you posted, state that they are not a liberal instance and don’t want to be. They also state that they would like to see another instance take on the role of a mainstream, liberal instance. I think it is extremely unfair to expect lemmy.ml to cater to liberals when they explicitly state that their instance is not a liberal instance.
edit: link to the post: https://lemmy.ml/post/70280 (it can be found linked on their sidebar immediately above their rules)
They do on the “about us” link. Although it is also somewhat euphemized.
I’m guessing they don’t want the negative connotations of writing “dissenting opinions will be censored”, so they just kind of allude to it and use loosely defined rules as needed.
It’s literally in the tld. Did you think it’s an instance for Mali enthusiasts?
They used to market themselves as a leftist instance, but for some reason they’ve made it less clear later on.
I figured the domain was a leftover from the past.
AI. I’m not so much AI, as I am anti corporate. Fuck Google openAI, Anththropic, MS whatever.
But the tech itself I’ve found useful to first draft all sorts of stuff: emails, letters, docker compose files, turning nothing into something I can tweak. I’ve had it project manage a little herb garden. I’ve pushed corospondance I’ve received into it to sanity check myself for tone and things not said. All on the free tier of chatgpt and gemini
I accept what it gives me as imperfect, some times good enough is good enough, often ill tweak its output, sanity check it, etc.
Monopolies are bad except when it’s steam.
can you tell what makes steam a monopoly?
Their overwhelmingly large market share.
The only thing they used to get there is the advanced technique of providing a good service, though is still call them a monopoly. They hold a lot of market power and could probably screw over the desktop gaming industry in some pretty significant ways in the short term if they wanted to.
Their overwhelmingly large market share.
that’s not a monopoly.
monopoly is when new competitors are prevented from being formed or from being competitive.
like google has a monopoly on android, because without their proprietary services taking over full control the phone, manufacturers are not allowed to install the play store, and without play store, users won’t have access to lots of apps they need. this is including government and banking apps, some of which don’t have a standalone webapp.
together with apple, they form a duopoly, because these apps everybody expects to have access to are not available on other mobile operating systems. for one because the apps are made with an incompatible technology, but also because these platforms are working hard to prevent functional compatibility layers being built for other operating systems, e.g. with play integrity verification or the pairip tool.
these are monopolies and a duopoly because they actively prevent competitors from forming. is steam doing something along those lines?
The only thing they used to get there is the advanced technique of providing a good service
I think we already have the answer. steam does not do anticompetitive practices.
This is just a question of semantics. If valve wanted to commit to anticompetitive practices they easily could (e.g. make it so that games published on steam can’t be published on other desktop storefronts as well, I think most publishers would be forced to stick with Steam). The only difference between our arguments is that what you call a “monopoly” is a company that actually commits to and controls the market with such practices and what I call a “monopoly” is a company that has enough market power to do so. (And I think both are totally sensible definitions of the word “monopoly”)
I think we already have the answer. steam does not do anticompetitive practices.
I think you should do a little bit of research on this. Even just a tiny little bit. Literally the smallest non-zero amount will do.
if you could, what would you do about it? split up steam into 2 steams? take peoples game libraries and separate it in 2 halves like a divorce?
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I don’t think splitting up steam makes sense, since they still provide a good service for everyone.
Maybe change the steam license (and everyone else’s) such that users are closer to actually owning copies of the games. Give the consumers some guarantees that go beyond good track record. As it stands, I think Steam would be able to charge you money per download of a game or require a subscription fee for you to be able to access your library or some shit like that, and most consumers would be effectively forced to pay up.
I don’t know though, perhaps it would be smarter to leave them alone and punish them only if they abuse their monopoly power, because leaving them alone has thus far resulted in a pretty healthy and thriving market.
I just want go point out in the EU there is a distinction between a natural monopoly and an artificial one. A natural one like Steam isn’t related the same way
This argument always brings out the armchair lawyer in folks, but they miss the point entirely. It’s not about what’s legal (especially when the notion of “legal” has been shaped by years and years of lobbying by big corporates), it’s about what’s good for consumers. And an 85% market share is a huge risk to consumers. It’s as plain as day.
You’re hard pressed to find a more vindictive audience than what we’ve got here. Everyone’s on a constant hunt for something to disagree about or to maybe spot a small crack that lets the actual motives shine through and when they spot something they point it out viciously. Can’t just politely disagree with anyone let alone try and have a constructive conversation about how much we actually disagree about. No, they used AI and thus this person gets written off completely and called an asshole and fascist for it.
This makes even less sense when you consider the fact that usually the underlying reasons are political. To win in politics, all you need is numbers. That’s it. So why the fuck is everyone constantly put through this Navy SEALs hell week level of scrutiny. Nobody is ever good enough. Sometimes makes it feel like some simply want to lose just so that they can keep complaining how everything is the fault of someone else.
