The paper this article is based on is from 2009. I’d argue that’s against rule 5.

Have you ever used cheats on single player games when that was still a thing developers put in games? I did, it was fun. That’s why.

I remember a similar case regarding Windows shipping with IE. Whatever happened with that?

I agree. One clear example is banning someone for participating on a community the mod doesn’t like. Admins should learn from reddit’s mistakes and limit what mods can and can’t do.

But what’s the actual problem with the ability for posts to have negative scores?

It incentives self censorship that turns sites into echo chambers. e.g. Reddit

There’s currently nothing stopping a mod from creating a bot to do the same. Maybe it’s already a thing.

Do you have an example of a technology that is more efficient than human labor, doesn’t have those side effects and was successfully held back just to keep jobs?

Here

I like being able to say what I want without being banned by a power-tripping mod

There’s currently nothing stopping a mod from creating a bot that deletes comments below certain threshold or that bans users for commenting on communities they don’t approve like they did on Reddit. Only site policies can prevent that.

I agree, but there already is a karma system.

Nobody cared at all

The mods cared. There were many bots used by moderators that relied on karma, the main one being automoderator.

It did if your karma was low enough. It also affected whether your votes were counted or not.

Yes it does. Some filtering is done by reddit and some by the mods. Also your votes don’t count if you don’t have certain amount of karma accumulated on the sub you are voting.

Also as a right leaning person everytime I say an opinion I get downvoted to hell, which puts my score in negative.

You can see you total score here.

Lemmy only has the voting per individual post and comment, but doesn’t accumulate this as a sidewide score.

Lemmy does have a karma system. Here’s yours.

I tried it on these platforms:

• Twitter: it works
• Mastodon: it works
• tumblr: it works
• Reddit: it doesn’t loop, video must be at least 2 seconds in length, not allowed in comments
• Discord: not autoplay, no loop
• Lemmy: no video hosting

The union negotiations could include in the contract that AI generated actors are not allowed when SAG is involved.

Ok, but if they want to ban all forms of AI then we are no longer just talking about the morally reprehensible example of a studio buying an actor’s likeness in perpetuity. They want AI gone even when it’s used in a more sensible way which is understandable from their point of view but less so for the rest of us.

They want to pay for an actor’s likeness once then own it for a lifetime.

But isn’t trying to forbid those kind of deals doomed to fail? What if the digital actor doesn’t look like anybody? What if they scan actors from other countries?

<a history of union achievements in Australia>

I’m not arguing about the benefits of unionization, my question was about what happens when a machine becomes more efficient than a human worker. Do you think a union could have saved the switchboard operators? How is it any different from this scenario?

Regarding the AI dilemma I have two questions. How is it different from any other time in history when a worker was replaced by a machine, and given the lessons learned, isn’t it futile to resist?

In that case the only people that can answer the question are the engineers from those platforms.