Not only is it distracting and disgusting, but it starts normalising ads everywhere. Cigarettes were digitally removed so as to not set a bad example for kids. But letting them think that it’s perfectly normal to have glowing ads decorating the walls of your workplace is fiiiine.
What movie dialogue did they edit?
Here’s something from 2025 and it’s even better, because AI!
Its definitely just proof of concept for now, but it seems a grim, if inevitable, step in the war of ads vs adblockers.
Glad that you’re a human! The worst part about the rise in bot posts is that it creates an atmosphere of distrust. The fact that you’ve commented, and hopefully don’t delete your account in a few hours, is very reassuring.
I still think someone going to jail for posting a meme is beyond mildlyinfuriating. But that’s a matter of opinion.
This is more than mildlyinfuriating. Also, this new account has posted ten times in its first hour. Mostly politics.
Given what we’ve seen in the last few weeks about the scale of paid actors using social media to increase tensions and divisions, I’m getting very sick of this kinda behaviour.
I fucking hate CK and the way the American right is using this story to push their agenda. But that doesn’t mean I want to see bots trying using that to reaction to push our buttons.
https://lemmy.world/post/39499201 https://lemmy.world/post/39490841 https://lemmy.world/post/39379258 https://lemmy.world/post/39401080 https://lemmy.world/post/39443812 https://lemmy.world/post/39251915 https://lemmy.world/post/39294224 https://lemmy.world/post/38937776 https://lemmy.world/post/38770260
Just looking at the last 20 posts (including this one), these 9 are all links to ragebait news stories from accounts that are now deleted and have similar random usernames. Of the remaining 11, one is a weird downvoted post from a deleted account, 2 are politics posts but from active users. Just over a quarter of the posts are actually about interesting/useful information.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I know what you mean. Asking people to join and then not be able post seems a bit shit. Same with the light moderation in most communities, when there’s a comparatively low level of posts, do we really want to be removing posts for being “off topic”?
But I also think that can backfire. I’m pretty close to leaving YSK and mildlyinfuriating because it feels that half the posts are just variations on politics. The tagine of “YSK” is a place for all the things to make your life easier. Looking back through the last 20 posts >75% are to do with politics, bad people and their misdeeds. I hate Boris Johnson, and people should be told he’s a corrupt ass hole, but we have communities for politics which is where that belongs.
Ragebait is always going to do well, it’s how our brains are wired. So if we don’t want all communities to end up being mostly “this is bad, you should be angry and sad” then we need stricter moderation. It’s a mistake to think more posts = more content. If most of the main communities of lemmy are overrun by these kinds of posts, the only new users it’s going to attract are people who want that, and the problem snowballs.
Not sure, but I wonder if it’s seen as an “easy” community to post in? There’s not a strict sense of what’s appropriate, and a lot of posts are just a link to an article, with “YSK” + a rewording of the article headline as the title.
It’s also one of the bigger communities, so posting a random article about a storm or laptops will get a decent amount of upvotes in a few hours.
Given that it mostly seems to be new accounts, I wonder if it’d be worth requiring a minimum age of a week or two before users can create a post?
In case any non-British are reading this, ‘chav’ is a term used to describe a small subset of British working class people. It used to describe young people with “loutish (ill-mannered) behaviour, violence, and particular speech patterns (all of which are stereotypes)” (Wikipedia.)
It is not a term used to describe the general working class population of Britian.
Important story, horrible situation. Definitely not “mildly infuriating”
Weird. I’m on 145.0.1 (Build #2016126887), I even tried going to arstechnica.com in case it only happened on certain websites, but the urls Firefox shares to whatsapp are totally normal for me. Some sort of A/B testing?
Just tried sharing to WhatsApp, using the Firefox share button, on android. Link is normal.
I don’t know what to else to say, the community describes itself as “women only” and he described it as being “female only”. You could (but probably shouldn’t) take it up with that community if you really feel their “women only” rule excludes girls. But I’m not sure I see how it excludes “ladies” which are generally considered a subset or synonym of “women”.
To continue your point, it’s true that not every’ female’ is a woman, indeed not every female is human. You get female seahorses, penguins and even female plants (dioecious ants like asparagus or holly). But for most English speakers, in most situations, female is an adjective and not a noun. So, you might ‘have a female friend’ , but you’re not usually ‘friends with a female’.
In my experience, the only linguistic situations where it is common to use female as a noun are 1) in scientific writing “the male mantis is decapitated by the larger female”, and even their is usually just to avoid repeating the name of species. Or, 2) within groups of akward men. I’m not sure if they’re trying to sound intelligent by aping scientific terminology, or are so removed from regular contact with women that they see them almost as another species.
Obviously it doesn’t mean that everyone who talks about ‘females’ is an incel, but its use is highly linked to people who spend time in communities that don’t involve a lot of women. Just as not everyone who uses “bogan” is Australian, but most of them are. Or, have spent a lot of time in Australian-adjacent situations.
That’s on me, there’s a few typos in my reply. I was just saying I’ve never heard it, not that I think I will never hear it ever. And genuinely the only menfolk I’ve heard use it earnestly were akward teenage boys, and the older lads mocked them and told them they sounded lame.
This is in the UK (and ten years ago), so maybe it’s much more common in Australia or the US or something. But from the reaction it generally gets online, I get the feeling it’s generally looked down on (outside of humor, or sci-fi).
I don’t think people are bothered by “female coworker”, which is perfectly normal. It’s the reference to a “female-only” community, when the actual com is called WomensStuff and describes itself as “women only” and “a women’s community”.
I agree that the guy in the post is mildlyinfuriating at best, and much more likely a douche (never hear a woman use male as a noun like that, a very particular shibboleth). But I’m not sure I love. This community becoming half posts picking on specific users. Should we blur the usernames? Otherwise its an easy path to brigading and bullying.
If there’s really just one mod, then maybe they should pick a few other people to help manage the community. But if they’re not willing to do that, and people are genuinely annoyed about the lack of modding then we should start an alternate community.
It seems like a lot of posts on here are about frustration with modding (to be fair, it is only mildly irritating to me), so maybe there’s enough support for a new community. Or is there a way to contact the instance mods and get more mods assigned, if the existing mod team aren’t around?
I’m not a fan of that change, but I don’t really see it as an attempt to be more ‘politically correct’.
I think Lucas is wrong, because even if he shoots first Han is being threatened with kidnap and death, so he’s not a cold-blooded murderer to shoot the guy threatening him. But unless we’re rolling all ideas of heroism and morality into woke/PC then I don’t think that example works at all.