I can’t believe this Is the supposed high level of discourse on lemmy
Lemmy users and AI have a lot of things in common, like being confidently incorrect and making things up to further their point. AI at least agrees and apologises when you point out that it’s wrong, it doesn’t double down and cry to the mods to get you banned.
AI doesn’t lie, it just gets things wrong but presents them as correct with confidence - like most people.
As someone on Lemmy I have to disagree. A lot of people claim they do and pretend they do, but they generally don’t. They’re like AI tbh. Confidently incorrect a lot of
It completed the task, it was just wrong.
So AI is just like most people. Holy cow did we achieve computer sentience?!
How are these people losing access to their MS accounts on their computers?
What we call “JoUrNaLiStS” these days are nothing more than activists most of the time, as is evident by whoever wrote this article and whoever ok’d it for publication, especially without publishing the comments that they specifically reached out to Tesla’s board to get.
In this situation you can either believe:
a) Unsubstantiated rumours, with zero evidence supplied, zero sources, from a “JoUrNaLiSt” who tried to verify the story and then refused to acknowledge and publish the fact that the rumour was denied.
b) the board, who the rumour is about, flat out denying the rumour.
I choose to believe the one that isn’t just reporting rumours based on zero evidence that have been categorically denied. You choose the other option, which is up to you, but it makes your decision making skills look very dubious. You seem very much in the “guilty until proven innocent” category, because that’s essentially what you’re saying here - you’re asking someone to prove a negative, and even when they say they aren’t doing it you then don’t believe them?
Many would argue that Tesla’s stock price would go UP if this rumour was true, so saying that their stock price depends on them denying it is questionable.
We don’t want Murdoch back btw.
So I’m a fool for believing the board members, but you’re not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ
I’m assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn’t.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out?
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
So you will believe a rumour based on nothing but won’t believe the board of directors denying said rumour unless they sue? What kind of crazy mindset is that?
This has been directly refuted by the Tesla board, who even told the reporters that it wasn’t true when they were asked before the article was published……then they published it anyway and didn’t include the boards comments lol
Not to mention it’s optional, entirely on device, and secure.
Let’s be honest, most of Lemmy users complaining about it are on Linux or a Chromebook anyway. They can’t use it even if they wanted to.
I’m not sure anyone really cares about PewDiePie anymore, let alone what OS he uses.
I remember Usenet, in fact I still use it to this very day.
If people want to engage with the “bad actor” then that’s their right.
You know what also makes new people not stick around? Over zealous moderation, especially when it’s clearly biased towards maintaining an echo chamber. More and more people are waking up to the fact that censorship is getting out of control, especially on social media sites, and they don’t like it.
Given self moderation and overarching and overbearing moderation are both the kiss of death, the one where a few people control the whole thing and direct the echo chamber is the more destructive imo.
The only real moderation that needs to happen is self moderation. If you see someone saying stuff that you don’t like, block them. That persons opinions are now gone for all that matters to you. There’s no need for their opinions to be removed for everyone. Everyone has the capabilities to moderate their own experience.
If someone keeps being racist and it bothers you, block them. If someone keeps name calling and it bothers you, block them. Those of us who aren’t bothered by opinions we don’t agree with or by people saying things we don’t like can still engage with those people and perhaps even teach (or learn!) something.
There should be very few restrictions on speech, especially in an online forum/community, imo, restricted basically only for trying to incite or threatening actual physical harm.
Moderation/censorship of speech, especially when the power to decide what gets removed and who gets banned and for how long is just given to random people on the internet, usually because they’re friends with and share ideologies and opinion with mods/admin, inevitably leads to a “safe space” echo chamber where any dissenting views are not allowed, while the allowed views are allowed to be presented in whatever manner they want, including calls for violence, abuse, etc. See Reddit as the absolute biggest and most current example. Twitter before that.
“Book bans” at schools are not the same. Some books are not suitable for children, free speech has nothing to do with it.
Checks mod logs of any popular instance……
Free speech definitely not permitted.
Google and others used Reddit data to train their LLMs. That’s all you need to know about how accurate it will be.
That’s not to say it’s not useful, but you need to know how to use it and understand that you need to only use it as a tool to help, not to take it as correct.