This might be better for wealthy people but it’s hard to see how this would benefit the very poorest who are in most need of health care. What does this solution do for them?

Looks like a dryad’s saddle though I’ve never heard of it barking before.

Maybe that’s related to the dog somehow.

In the current moment I would agree. I’m not sure that would be true in comparison to a hypothetical sole superpower China. But who can say for sure.

removed by mod

Is this a bad thing somehow? I would think reducing debts is generally beneficial, especially in times of economic crisis.

What do you mean by keeping write-offs from occurring?

Chinese foreign policy has been fairly cautious and covert compared to other world powers. I think this has generally been a good strategy as it has avoided major conflicts with the US and Europe in recent times.

I can’t think of any coup they’ve directly supported but they certainly have supported military movements and governments in other countries, including Vietnam, North Korea, Myanmar, and Venezuela. So they’ve been a bit less prone to overthrowing governments but they aren’t afraid to use similar tactics to keep friendly regimes in power, and help those factions expand power. So is it a coup to help the North Vietnamese conquer the South? I guess it depends on the definition of coup which can be a fraught word.

Personally I’m not sure I see any of these as coups. The closest might be Myanmar but while China has protected and supported the junta there, it’s not totally clear they actually supported the coup itself. I interpret their actions as seeking stability and wanting to minimize Western influence.

Most likely some other country (or countries) would simply fulfill the same role of projecting their military and economic power onto the rest of the world to maintain their hegemony. We see this in limited ways already with many other countries, though with a few exceptions, they’re careful in how much they conflict with US interests. One of these, likely China, would move into that role and while the details would be different in some ways, many of the overall dynamics would be similar.

Because they didn’t like the direction Reddit was heading I guess? But I don’t know the full answer. I’ve just noticed that Lemmy seems to skew older than I would have expected.

Maybe it’s just reflecting the demographics of the tech-savvy open source enthusiasts that might be interested in such a project? Are there young people with such interests still? And if so where are they?

I’m also old, just not as grumpy as some, so I don’t really know what the young people are up to nowadays. Most I know in person seem to be on TikTok and instagram but that’s not the tech crowd, if they’re out there somewhere.

Lemmy has a lot of grumpy old folks who fear change so it just comes with the territory.

Funhouse mirror version but yeah it is pretty similar, never thought about that.

I’m not sure I agree. For comparison, here’s a recent article on Gaza from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-warns-israel-hamas-best-last-chance-end-gaza-war-2024-08-19/

Yes, it’s written from a western perspective, but there’s a clear attempt to include opposing perspectives including Hamas and ordinary Gazans. You see no such attempts from the Cradle’s reporting.

It’s true that all media is biased but that does not mean it’s equally biased. There is a big difference between the unavoidable bias of your own unconscious views on a topic and actively spreading misinformation. I am not very familiar with the cradle beyond these few articles but they appear to fit the latter category while Reuters and similar publications fit into the former.

Overall I think the assessment by the bias ranking seems fair, and the post removal even encouraged you to post another source on the same topic, so it’s not saying that this issue cannot be discussed. While I don’t necessarily agree with the mod’s action, it doesn’t seem like it’s an attempt to silence Palestinian voices either.

Here’s one: https://thecradle.co/articles/syrian-president-assures-russia-of-unwavering-support

I dunno, seems pretty biased to me. Even if it’s mostly quoting politicians, uncritically repeating their propaganda without any caveats is questionable at best.

Not a bad idea. I lack the skills myself but if anyone is interested in such a thing, let me know. I’d be happy to support in any way I can.

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?

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.