It was but a mere example

Fair enough.

It could help, but it’s not a problem that any one solution is the solution. There’s going to be some combination of solutions to actually solve it.

Also reasonable

Not really, I might have a lot of accounts, but it’s still only 1 per instance so it’s not really inflating the numbers. Besides most go by monthly active users for gauging the Threadiverse health which because of my pattern I might not even make up 1 MAU lol

Reasonable again.

I don’t just make them, I do my best to actively contribute to them, like I said I also post “organically sourced” content and not just crossposts for this very reason.

I missed that, if that’s whats happening i retract my implication.

Um I’m not sure how that would be a user education error? I’m talking about someone maliciously making an imposter account and posting heinous crap “in their name” But there is currently no technical solution on the Threadiverse afaik for it

I think imposter account is a misnomer, two accounts with the same name on different instances are distinct entities afaik,

like [email protected] isn’t the same as [email protected].

if you look at a post and it’s written by “mike” and you don’t look at the instance it’s from you’re only getting half of the information you need.

Solutions for this type of problem exist already (PGP keys etc), they just aren’t very practical for regular people.

The “could be better solved in a different manner.” part was mostly about how the underlying software for the instances might be changed to allow for some of these existing solutions to be integrated more seamlessly.

Or something entirely new, who knows.

Nah crossposts are a solution for a different problem, 4 is for when an instance hasn’t federated with another instances remote comm yet and is therefore unknown to the instance

For example, I made this post to my comm at [email protected] today from this toast.ooo instance I’m on rn

But toast.ooo never federated with that comm so as far as this instance knew [email protected] didn’t exist until I manually went to the comm by URL (toast.ooo/c/[email protected]) and subbed to it

Until then nobody on this instance would have been seeing posts from that comm in their c/all/new/whatever feed, even if a post went “viral”. But now they will and for every other comm I sub to as I go

I didn’t know this is how it worked, makes sense in that context.

I’m not sure catering to the opinions of random redditors is a useful approach, but that aside.

The Lemmy network and the Threadiverse at large being associated as just a Tankie hangout

Which would be solved by creating an instance (or building up an existing instance) that isn’t the triad.

In this case Rimu (PieFed dev) and others were quick to jump in and steer, so hopefully this whole boycotting/cross-posting campaign at the very least gives them more fuel when these comments come up on the outside something like “Tankies are there, but they don’t have any important comms so you can just block those 3 instances or join [x] instance which blocks them for you”

Which would also be solved with the same solution.

From your list:

1. Promoting smaller instances, because of the volume of my posting it helps makes smaller instances more recognizable
2. Making comms on fitting smaller instances (e.g. a programming comm id make on programming.dev)
3. Mitigating against the imposter problem
4. Better interconnecting smaller instances

1 sounds like artificially inflating the numbers

2 isn’t that useful IMO because without the actual content / ongoing engagement you just end up with multiple ghost communities.

3 i think the imposter problem is a user education error and/or could be better solved in a different manner.

4 this is what cross-posting is for right (though I’ll admit that experience is lacklustre right now)? You don’t need a whole account to cross-post between communities.

Artificially inflating the numbers might look like it helps in the short term, but is bringing someone here under false pretences a workable solution, or even a solution you want ?

Injecting activity into non-.ml comms and growing them beyond the .ml version is probably the next best thing to wide defederation.

This makes sense.

Kinda, it helps dilute the waters further, but doesn’t really solve the root issue

It’s probably something obvious i’m missing, but what is the root problem ?

Again, i could be wrong here, but it sounds like you’re expecting a group of people who have shown no interest in moving on any of their positions to change their minds because you are drawing attention to content and behaviour…that they don’t deem to be an issue in the first place.

That sounds like screaming into the void to me, but as i said, i really don’t understand the nuances at play.

Isn’t the system expected response to such irreconcilable disagreements to start your own instance (with optional hookers and blackjack), enforce your own rules and regulations there and let people decide which they prefer (if any)?

The multiple accounts aren’t for avoiding bans and no account of mine is currently banned (except for the ones I don’t control (had a bit of an imposter problem last year)) they’re really just for those 4 reasons listed.

Makes sense.

genuine question.

I was of the impression that one of the major selling points of de-federated services such as this was to not have to engage in circumvention to get around policies and rules that you don’t agree with.

If you don’t agree with the administration of an instance then don’t use that instance (or start your own and de-federate that instance i suppose).

Dialogue about the policies and subjective opinion makes sense, if that’s how you want to engage, but the somewhat decentralised nature of the fediverse make someone power tripping as an admin on an instance is easy enough to avoid by just not engaging.

More succinctly , why would you want to expend effort to be part of an instance that foundationally doesn’t align with your values.

To put it another way, a mod doing their utmost to create an echo chamber of their liking (no matter how distasteful that liking might be) is allowable within the bounds of how this was all designed, the system working as intended.

Whereas creating multiple accounts to avoid bans, while technically possible, seems kind of outside of the intended process.

I could be very wrong about how all this works however, as my grasp of the intricacies is somewhat shallow.

Probably not one that stands up to scrutiny.

If they have fixed programming, the bias would be consistent, but still there, because it would be based upon systems that are already inherently bias.

Any current ML system is beholden to the data/constraints it was built with, if inherent bias exists in the data it will exist in the resulting system.

That’s before you even start taking in to account the infrastructure that would be managing them being potentially corrupt or having their own interpretations of “public safety”.

“These bots from <generic third party> are bringing in more cases against the <“good” people>, but these ones from <tech company with the same bigoted ideology as us> can be tweaked to target the <“bad” people>, which of these two companies should we purchase our inventory from ?”

Subjective art opinions as a basis for an argument, with no supporting positions ? that’s some 5 year old’s conversational skill right there.

Might as well have said “nuh uh”.

Enjoy your weak debate skills !

Easy answer is , they don’t

Though that’s just the one admitting to it.

A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there’s likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it’d be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.

“anonymous” downvotes aren’t a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.

and I’m saying it’s not a common occurrence, intentional or not.

Guns aren’t common enough in the UK for “they’ve got a gun” to be a go-to for the police.

“They’ve got a knife” or “They’ve got a sign the ruling class don’t want people to see” are more likely.

As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it’s by no means the norm.

Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.

I was just saying it’s not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).

The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.

In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.

Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.

You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?

I didn’t realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

Should be

“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”

The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)

Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.

I’m not, and i quote:

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.

Not really.

Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.

I’m counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1…*] <things> solution.

Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.

I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.

And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.

I think what i’ve done here is read “assistance” as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.

My bad.

Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.

I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both “good” and “bad”.

As i said in my previously replies , there was no assumption of contradiction.

The two statements in that reply add up to a different position that if you just take the first statement on it’s own.

Not a contradiction, an addition/clarification.

But this is the most salient point:

Many people were pushing for a housing only being a suboptimal solution

No-one at any point was pushing for a housing-only solution (after that first reply of course, which for some reason has a lot of votes)

Any argument based on someone else having done so, will be flawed.

Your argument ignores something significant:

I’m not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.

In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself?

There is no assumption on my part, it’s in the reply.

If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.

I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.

I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol

Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)

So you’re telling me that this first reply does not state “I can tell you with a straight face that the solution homeless is something other than providing houses. The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

If you’re going to use a quote as a supporting argument at least include the whole quote or it seems like you’re purposely missing out the parts that don’t support your argument.

the whole reply is:

I can: the solution to homelessness is a combination of mental health ed in schools, free & non-judgemental mental health support (incl. medication), free addiction recovery programs, free food, job & community support, and free housing.

If you just provide free housing, there will be a significant proportion of people who would not be able to fully benefit from it due to mental health issues, addictions, and lack of purpose in life.

The second part adds context to the first, which changes it from a

"The solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

to a

"A more comprehensive (though not complete) solution is to provide houses AND assistance”

Or you’re telling me that “The solution is to provide houses AND assistance” means “providing a house without providing assistance solves the problem” ETA: which then implies that this reply states “I can tell you with a straight that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing houses. Providing houses is sufficient.”

See above

Granted, I did say “not enough” I should have clearly stated that “not enough” is equivalent to “not at all”. Keep in mind this is a generalized statement, so in order for it to be true it must be true across the entire domain.

Somewhat agreed, though that’s is dependant on the criteria for true, but let’s go with this for now.

Our domain is homeless people, therefore if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home, and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

Let me break this one down:

1. if adequately helping some but not all homeless people is accomplished then “solving the homeless problem” has not been accomplished; the only thing that accomplishes this goal is to put every person in a home
2. and the second argument implies that the first one will inevitably cause some of those who do not receive mental health assistance to go homeless again therefore failing to put every person in a home.

You’re conflating “solving the homeless problem” and “put every person in a home”

That first argument was never provided as you’ve written it, nobody was arguing a housing-only solution as a complete solution.

If the first argument is true, that putting people into homes solves the homeless problem, then it is also true that putting people into homes and adequately assisting them also solves the homeless problem. The third argument finally states that the second is false because putting people into homes without help is adequate, as they are in a home. This fails to satisfy the predicate of the second argument, making it an invalid counterpoint. If the predicate is not true, the argument cannot be evaluated therefore the counterpoint is invalid. However, if the predicate of the third argument is true then the second argument is invalid. Hence, I asked for sources.

Putting aside that , again, i wasn’t arguing any of those actual points (though i can engage on that if you want to start a separate thread)

That’s a load bearing initial if and it’s load is resting on a specific interpretation of “solves the homeless problem”

I’m not arguing your algebraic logic here, at a glance it seems fine.

I’m arguing your interpretation of the context.

No one was arguing that housing is the full solution in and of itself, so asking for sources to prove a position not taken doesn’t make sense.

(there was one person who seems to be confusedly arguing for housing+ against someone who was also arguing housing+, for some reason)

As i said, boolean algebra only works if the values are correct to start with.

Holy fuck, “Space logistics simulator with some casual space piracy” the game.

For the receptive kind of brain that’s some premium crack.

This where we disagree and the communication broke down.

It seems we do disagree because even in this reply you provide no justification for assigning a must to an argument that is provided as a should.

The original logical argument is that the solution to homelessness is to provide houses.

Agreed.

Though technically™, and for a very literal definition of homelessness, that is correct.

The arguments that followed look like they are providing counterarguments using a less literal definition, like “modern day homelessness and the causes thereof”

The counterpoint is that providing houses is not enough of a solution

Agreed, emphasis on the not enough, meaning, still partially enough.

and that in order to actually solve the problems that homeless people face, they must also receive the other assistances listed.

This is where our interpretations differ.

I’m reading this as :

and that in order to solve more of the problems that homeless people face, they should must also receive the other assistances listed.

They were providing a possible suggestion to increase the effectiveness of the solution, that’s not a must that’s a should also

Less of a “It won’t work at all without this” vs “yeah, ok, but we should also do this as well”

I’ll concede it is a very strong should but it’s not close enough to a must to come to “So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research” as a conclusion.

ETA: Actually, if you’re familiar with Boolean algebra…

I am familiar with it, boolean algebra doesn’t help if the values you are using are faulty.

At this point, I’ll stress I’m not arguing for or against any of the points raised in the actual discussion, my original reply consisted of: “housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only”

The only thing i’ve been doing is taking the examples you’ve provided (and in the original case, the request you made) and pointed out where they seem to rely on faulty interpretations or information not provided.

Which portion am I interpreting incorrectly?

The portion contained in the reply you were responding to.

You were asking for sources in response to a specific reply, sources that included only housing and not accompanying mental health support.

i was just saying that the reply you responded to mentioned “housing-first” not “housing-only”, so it seemed like you were asking for sources for something that was never mentioned ( in that reply ).

But i’ll respond to your reply , point by point.

First reply states that mental health assistance must accompany housing assistance 1.2;

It does not, it posits that mental health support will help a greater proportion of people, there is no must in there.

Next reply states that this goes against the findings of a housing-first approach 2.1:

So i’ll concede that this person does seem a bit confused, given that they seem to be arguing the same point as the person they were responding to in what seems to be a fairly hostile manner.

But they still seem to be championing a housing-first approach.

Their next statement makes little sense to me 2.2:

Because the initial reply said to give both, not one or the other 1.1:

Those two statements aren’t mutually exclusive.

One is a proposed solution, the other is a somewhat pointless statement, but it’s not contradictory.

So, if giving both mental health assistance as well as housing assistance is antithetical to housing-first research, then there must be a study which shows that mental health assistance is either unnecessary or detrimental.

I’m not sure how you’re getting from "I think these two things would solve the problem " to “Only thing one is required, thing two is useless and possibly detrimental to the goal”.

ETA: If they’re arguing for the same thing, then why did the second person imply that the first one was wrong?

Confusion or misunderstanding probably.

Not me you’re replying to, but I assume “housing-first” doesn’t mean “housing only”