Digg is gone again

Post by NetMageSCW » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:11 PM UTC

GeorgeWBasic wrote: post #80

kstrauser wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a VERY HUMAN way to write. I don't care so much about Digg, but the endless "haha, I caught you!" comments annoy me more than the rare actual AI-written content they label.

Not to the same extent at all. If you use ChatGPT for a while, you'll see it writes like that very frequently. Humans do write like that sometimes, but not with anywhere the frequency that ChatGPT does it. That's weak evidence for it being ChatGPT.

Post by NetMageSCW » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

GeorgeWBasic wrote: post #89

kstrauser wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose ChatGPT uses a semicolon more often than an individual person. On a pageful of comments from many random people, someone using a semicolon doesn't mean they're a bot even if 100% of their comments on that page includes one.

Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.

Post by ranger_danger » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

koolala wrote: post #304

pardon_me wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ban reason and the moderator name were public on Something Awful, which allowed the community to respond (actively or passively), and for more senior moderators/admin to take public action against rogue moderators. The transparent audit trail countered the incentive to ban somewhat, but a lot of people also treating getting banned as a game.

Did they ban for this rule often? "Am I making a post which is either funny, informative, or interesting on any level? I hate how Reddit mods ban any post they don't like as being 'low effort / shit / spam' when it is completely vague.

Post by davedigerati » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:20 PM UTC

dandaka wrote: post #332

IAmGraydon wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bot problem can easily be solved. It’s just that no one likes the cure. Think about this for a minute: what would happen if you had a country where all its citizens could act anonymously with no consequences, no reputation, no repercussions, and no trace? Would you want to go there? Live there? No, because it would be a lawless wasteland dominated by the worst of the worst. Yet people act like the internet is som…

I can imagine a "anonymity" or "reputation" filter attached to every interaction in the internet. Enabled by default, but you can disable safe mode and see bots having fun. Also for me problem is not in the anonymity itself, but in the lack of reputation. If I have a signal that entity can be trusted, I don't care much about its real identity.

Post by pixl97 » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:23 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #374

pixl97 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The particular problem is said speech quite often leads to calls of violence. And when a few people get banned for that you get dog whistles, sentences that are encoded calls for violence. Eventually the new slang is recognized for being violent and then it looks like the site has allowed calls of violence for months. A short version of this is, if you let a nazi come to your bar, you have a nazi bar.

Calls for violence are free speech. Calls for "imminent" violence that serve to coordinate it have been decided not to be. When you claim that calls for violence are not freedom of speech, it's a slippery slope that leads you to absurdities like speech that could "lead" to calls of violence are not freedom of speech, or that secret codes that could be interpreted as speech that would lead to calls to violence are not…