this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

24917 readers
2 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
1
PieFedeology - Ideological Purity in PieFed (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

PieFed has done it once again, this time adding 'warning' labels for opposing ideological perspectives, well at least one; Can't find any warnings for fascism or capitalism 🤔

This can be demonstrated here: https://piefed.social/c/globalnews/p/1697164/sudan-civil-war-spills-over-into-neighboring-chad-peoples-dispatch

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Are we supposed to bring back the whole history every time Rimu comments anywhere?

When he's being hypocritical AF about people "could have just asked", then yes I think I will.

Rimu discovers that a dbzer0 mod has been using a LLM for moderation. That mod has been somehow pretending to use OpenAI to upset the !fuckai crowd, actually it was a local freeware model. He posts about it.

Talk about underplaying the situation...

Rimu spread purposeful disinfo. He never "just asked". He ignored comments from our admins explicitly telling him he's wrong, because it went against his narrative. Was Purposefully uncharitable so he could spin it as badly as possible. Crossposted to Mastodon in an attempt to initiate a pile-on. I could go on...

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He ignored comments from our admins explicitly telling him he's wrong, because it went against his narrative.

Idk, sounds to me like you're equally ignoring comments from other parties telling you you're wrong because it goes against your narrative too. "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" is hardly an argument.

That's why this is a slugfest: "You're wrong! "No, you're wrong!" "No, we told you you're wrong!" "Your telling me that I was wrong was also wrong!"

Reasserting conflicting claims like they're facts isn't worth jack shit.

[–] Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Except they acted accountably and made efforts to fix the other sides grievances even if they didn’t agree.

Something that has not been returned and has only been met with increasing hostility.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I admit I don't know the whole story. I don't know what evidence was produced to support the LLM claim and what efforts were made.

The few comments I read here seemed like some attempt to reconcile were made but fell apart. I can't and don't want to point fingers one way or the other, personal bias notwithstanding.

I just wanted to point out "he said something even though we said it's wrong" isn't a particularly strong argument. That's just one party's word against the other's.