He’s also the governor, soo…

Well, you have to know these things when you’re a king millionaire, you know.

I didn’t interpret it that way, but I guess that might be misleading when I think about it.

Not even in the title?

No. I just did the age-old tradition in this community of seeing something, posting it, and accepting if I had to be corrected if something was wrong about it. Was something wrong about it?

But a part of my point is not everyone sets up an instance. I mean the commoners. They have the issues I am describing. That’s when it becomes the “crevice” issue I was referring to. And I guess it depends on what you mean by “stalking”, but I proved my point about what they were doing on the outset.

What would indirectly entail? I feel like we’re having different conversations here.

Each part of the fediverse, including each URL of “Lemmy”, is managed by different admins. It’s called the fediverse because it’s federated. It’s decentralized. You can interact with each part from the one you have an account on, but the admins cannot affect whatever happens in them.

In order for it to be decentralized, each part, called an “instance”, needs both software to be able to connect to other instances (think of how you can email people from other email sites) and the capacity to be connected to. This means each instance needs the same code, and once a federated continuum of sites has been made, it’s difficult to change the code that is distributed between people who want to make instances to participate in the fediverse as admins, even though the fediverse apparently can also connect you to places on the deep web and even places that are technically not even on the web.

This, in turn, is also why ban evaders often justify (and technically can justify) ban evasion on the fediverse more easily than on sites that are standalone communities.

But even more relevant to what I’m saying, it (and other properties of the fediverse) also makes it so that any cracks or imperfections in the programming are forced to stay that way, as well as why AI comes into play here. The fediverse, by its nature, is so vast and so intricate with the different ways each part connect to one another that an AI is the preferred way for a troll to find said cracks. The caveat, in return, is that you need to be an expert in guiding an AI to comprehend what it’s doing (as in, at the time of what I’ve been saying, you would need to have had an ultra-precise way of explaining to it what you wanted to do), with only a minority of AI even being able to sleuth around whatever links you hand-feed it. It’s in part a very famous issue of guardrails that make it this way. People like Sam Altman and Elon Musk have often explained having to increase how elaborate their AI’s self-imposed rules are in response to people exploring new elaborate ways to get around them, like a technological game of who can piss higher on the wall.

Enter this very pesky individual in question who has done just that. Through a week of work, they have mapped out every crevice of the fediverse. One of these (and the most alarming of which) is that, while removed content was never fully gone from the fediverse (hence why you can undelete comments), you originally had to stalk the whole fediverse manually to get answers, which might take a month. Now they have acquired the path to simply asking AI to find interactions people regret or want gone.

The archive was from a post of theirs that was in a recent document.

There are certain actions that do need an AI, yes, since AI knows how to permeate the infrastructure in unique ways. That and it makes a whole lot of other ones faster. An admin does not have access to every single instance, which this would indirectly entail.

The scary part is how much of this could be “unlocked” by someone who knows what they’re doing.

but in return they won’t be allowed to talk about it

This is a new feature of the justice system I haven’t seen before. Wouldn’t this amount to CCP-style censorship?

I misspoke during that part, sorry.

CNN was originally discouraging the view that Platner should be judged simply for things like the tattoo that were being pushed by Fox (with the understanding if you asked CNN that Platner did not know of the tattoo’s meaning). Was there a plot twist that was missed, aside from the allegations by one of his partners?

Sorry, misspoke for the Clinton part.

I for one think this is something that should be changed. Imagine how many good leaders we booted out because they had a divorce scandal or something.

My kind?

Did you think this was being asked by a conservative?

If you read what I’m asking, this is more a question about poking the bear than it is about actually accusing him or anyone else of being a Nazi.

Just wave like someone on the street.

If not, there are a hundred variations that would look fine.

Whether or not it’s an actual Nazi salute, it doesn’t have to look like you inviting a reverse hunchback to give you a high-five.

Like you said, sometimes people wave in ways where people are going to reach for things to frame as the same thing Elon Musk did. I’m aware it’s not the same thing. But if it’s not a Nazi salute, but you know it’s going to be seen as one by the opposition even if it’s completely understood by your party to not be one, you’re just poking the bear. Especially when nobody did it so frequently before the person who actually did it got outed for doing it.

By the way, that analogy I gave earlier about the middle finger actually happened. You could look this up. In Soviet Russia, it was common for people to push their glasses up with their middle finger when they were being recorded because they knew flipping the bird directly was a criminal offense. And there were instances where they did go to gulags. For pushing their glasses up while on camera.

There are many ways to wave. It seems like the way every single person seems to have settled on is the one that will get Republican headlines.

No, what I mean is why do a gesture that isn’t a salute but which people who are reaching for things to complain about… are going to complain about? I’m not saying the gesture is actually similar.

I know that. I’m not saying that isn’t true. But what sparked this spontaneous idea among Democratic candidates of “I’m going to do this thing which is clearly not a salute but which the Republicans are going to call one”?

It was far less common before to even be in the position where your opponents say “now that’s something I can spin into smear”. It would be like me hearing that my opponent got in trouble for giving a middle finger in a video starring politicians and being like “that’s the finger I’m going to use to push up my glasses from now on”.

That moment when the Nazism namecalling (and subsequent bannings) in the fediverse over non-ideological traits are no longer applicable all because someone is running for governorship in Maine.