21–29 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> "misinformation" (in contrast to "disinformation") does not say anything about intent, so you're wrong to quote that part. Misinformation. Noun. False or inaccurate information, especially that which is *deliberately intended to deceive*. I stand by my statement. > I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left. Which he clearly…
You are free to define words for yourself however you want, but "deliberately intended to deceive" is not a common requirement for "misinformation" AFAIK. e.g. it does not appear in e.g. Merriam-Webster or many other dictionaries; most just define it as "Information that is incorrect" or some variant thereof, which is also how I would use the word, neutral of any value judgement.
And even if it was, "especially" does not mean "exclusively". In my observation most "misinformation" is not spread deliberately; the root of it may be, but not the people who spread and amplify it.
Contact me if you want an invite; e-mail in profile.
Mods sent me a nastygram about it - apparently they checked the logs to see that I had originally submitted with a “disallowed” tag - as if I should have known that the message actually meant “you may not post this article now at all because you initially picked a tag that is disallowed for newcomers.” My bad, what a totally intuitive unwritten rule you have there - “any error from the system means you should just go away.”
Said nastygram also threatened to ban me for self-promotion. I didn’t write the article in question, so I’m really not sure what they mean over there by “self-promotion.”
I replied to the nastygram seeking some clarification on what I was doing wrong, but never got a reply. Haven’t bothered to interact since, because apparently a mod is pissed at me for reasons I truly cannot understand, and I don’t want to get my friend’s account banned for having invited me.
Doesn’t seem like a great place to me.
We need more sites in the same vein as HN & Lobsters but dedicated to controversial and up-and-coming (and therefore heavily criticized) topics like web3, and AI. There is a huge amount of pessimism towards web3 on here, and whilst most of the criticism is valid, it would be nice to have a forum where such pessimism is not allowed. As for AI: it's getting so popular that a day doesn't go by where several AI links are…
However, a site that is defined as being dedicated to controversial topics is likely to turn into a flame-fest or an echo-chamber quite fast. Do you have a proposed mechanism for preventing that?
Lobsters is wonderful for hard-banning politic, more programming focused, but is even more groupthink-heavy in the Haskell direction which gets a little boring. Conversations on programming are usually more informed, but also more predictable. They also ban really great contributors like https://github.com/BurntSushi for “self-promotion” which is very frustrating to me. I still visit both sites and probably comment m…
This is misinformation. I wasn't banned. And I was never warned about self-promotion. I left because I got flagged so much by my fellow community members that the web site promoted a banner that asked me to consider leaving[1]. I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this. Please stop. [1]: https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1399543042261061633
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is misinformation. I wasn't banned. And I was never warned about self-promotion. I left because I got flagged so much by my fellow community members that the web site promoted a banner that asked me to consider leaving[1]. I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this. Please stop. [1]: https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1399543042261061633
Oops! I misremembered things. I shouldn't have used your name – what I remembered is that you're gone, and other contributors who posted great content (that they themselves wrote) and good comments have also been banned for "self promotion". I conflated the two, but not maliciously/intentionally.
Basically, you used my name to support a narrative that Lobsters moderation is too heavy handed. But I have actually thought that Lobsters moderation wasn't strict enough. I wanted more moderation, not less, in order to raise the level of discourse.