auk

joined 7 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] auk 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think you missed the big triangle you have to click on.

Here's a transcript:


Election workers, the vast majority of them women, say they're feeling vulnerable to the charged political climate surrounding the 2024 election. 38% of the women staffing the polls say they've experienced threats, harassment, or abuse, fueling the violence, disinformation, and conspiracy theories following the 2020 election.

Joining us now, Elizabeth Landers, lead correspondent for the Scripps News Disinformation Desk.

"And Liz, you traveled to Surrey County in North Carolina to really dig deep on this. What did you find?"

"We traveled there back in June to get a sense of how disinformation is impacting election workers, specifically the almost all-female team that heads up Surrey County's elections. This is a small county. It's about 70,000 people. It's best known as the birthplace of Andy Griffith. And it's overwhelmingly a red Republican area, went 75% for the former president in 2020. Despite that though, and despite him winning that area, this small community has been dealing with mis- and disinformation around the elections since they took place."

"And the woman who heads up the elections there is Michelle Huff. She's a team of just four other people helping her administer these elections. They're working on this year-round. She described to us how things have changed since 2020. Take a listen."

"I was actually in one store in downtown Mount Airy. I was cornered and pressed for 20 minutes. This person was getting everything that they felt 2020 election that Trump did not win because of what election officials in this country did. Even in my church, all of sudden election officials are people to not be trusted and not believe."

"And Allie, disinformation in Surrey County for Michelle really reached a head in 2022. She said there were people that showed up at their office, confronted her about their voting systems, were asking her to see the voting machines, which the North Carolina State Board of Elections says that would have been illegal to give access to people who are not allowed to be around voting machines, that access to critical infrastructure there. They said they had evidence that the voting machines were pinging cell towers in 2020. So they were pushing conspiracies and unfounded information to her."

"And Michelle has said that she has had to harden their office, make changes there that she never thought that she would have to consider the safety of herself, her staff, her family. But really, she has in the last four years. And she is concerned about this in the lead up to the election in November."

"It makes a lot of sense, especially given the fact that this is a county that went so squarely for Trump. And yet the aspersions and bad faith that he has put upon the election system writ large are clearly even playing out in red counties. So then given what we saw in 2020, given what she's experiencing in counties like this one, what's being done to protect election workers? And I also imagine that this is impacting the number of people who want to be election workers."

"Absolutely. The Brennan Center for Justice, who we interviewed for this piece, says that they are losing election workers at sort of an unprecedented rate right now. People just don't want to do this kind of work because of these threats and harassment that they're dealing with. And in addition to that, they're losing the institutional knowledge. There's a lot of minutiae that are involved in election administration. Every state in this country has a different way that they administer these elections. So the Brennan Center is concerned about that."

"And I would also just add to that 80 percent of these election workers in this country are female. So part of the reason that we were focused on this story is because we've been tracking how disinformation is impacting women over at Scripps News. We've been kind of doing a series on this. And this is really impacting election workers because so many of them are women across the country, Allie."

"Really great reporting, Liz. It's going to have a long tail as we go into the 2024 election cycle. Thank you for tracking it and thank you for bringing it to us."

 

Back here in the U.S., Labor Day, the holiday to celebrate American workers, is a moment when labor unions hold parades and picnics to celebrate their role in giving members a voice in the workplace. But in an election year, Labor Day is also about politics. And as NPR's Don Gagne reports, this year labor is playing an especially visible role in the presidential race:


If you're looking for an example of how unions and the election are intertwined, look no further than the United Auto Workers' combative president, Sean Fein:

"Kamala Harris is one of us. She's a fighter for the working class. And Donald Trump is a scab."

That was at the recent Democratic National Convention, where a parade of union leaders spoke. Other high-profile speakers also gave labor a shout-out. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez embedded hers in this attack on Trump:

"And I, for one, am tired of hearing about how a two-bit union buster thinks of himself as more of a patriot than the woman who fights every single day to lift working people out from under the boots of greed, trampling on our way of life."

Democrats need labor to turn out. Liz Shuler is the president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization. She says in key battleground states, union members make up 20 percent of the vote. Plus, it's also significant that public support for unions is the highest it's been since the 1960s. We've had historic highs the last several years. Young people under the age of 30 are the most pro-union. So what does that speak to? It speaks to the fact that the economy has been broken for young people for way too long. Meanwhile, Donald Trump also sees union support as key. But he doesn't need a majority of voters there. He just needs to shrink the Democrats' traditional lead with labor. That's what helped him carry Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the presidency in 2016. But four years later, Joe Biden won each of those states, in part by restoring Democrats' level of support with unions. Which brings us to this year. Here's Trump at the Republican National Convention:

"And the leader of the United Auto Workers should be fired immediately, and every single auto worker, union and non-union, should be voting for Donald Trump."

Mike Hinton is a General Motors retiree who talked to NPR as he headed to a Trump rally this summer in Saginaw, Michigan. Personally, he says he ignores his union's candidate endorsements. Here's why this former Democrat backs Trump:

"We're a mess overseas. They don't respect us over there. I says our economy is out of hand for the elderly folks especially, and we need a change and we need to get them back in there to get things under control again."

Still more common are union members like Raquel Harvey, who was cheering on the Harris Walls ticket when they held a rally at a UAW local outside Detroit. Harvey says she does want to hear what her union thinks about candidates:

"Anybody the UAW endorses, you know, they support the working class, so it has a big effect on, you know, my decisions that I will make when I'm voting."

Unions are also stepping up their social media presence, like this UAW TikTok with audio of Trump joking with Elon Musk about firing workers who strike:

"But they go and strike and you say, that's okay, you're all gone."

But even with all the increased social media, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler says the most important way to reach union voters is still union members talking at work, in the break room, or after hours:

"Union members will be the ones who will be at the center of their communities, educating voters, bringing their friends and family and their neighbors and coworkers to the polls. That old-fashioned person-to-person getting people to the polls is what the labor movement's bread and butter is."

The election is nine weeks from tomorrow. Shuler sees it as a sprint, with union activists trying to reach a critical group of voters. Don Gagne, NPR News, Detroit.

[–] auk 1 points 1 week ago

That's exactly the solution, yes. If you've never posted before, and you make a comment that gets a few downvotes, your comment is removed, and you get a polite note saying that you don't have enough interactions to be able to post yet. A lot of subreddits do exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reason.

I still don't have that part of the system worked out, because it's only come up a couple of times. It hasn't even happened enough to give a good test run to the code. I've been tweaking the code every time it comes up, because it's not quite right yet, but it's been happening so rarely that it's not even really an issue. It would have been easier to moderate the throwaway comments by hand, to be honest.

[–] auk 0 points 1 week ago

Oh no! It hadn't occurred to me that excluding unpopular opinions might be a problem. If only I'd thought of that, I might have looped in some other people, talked extensively about the problem and carefully watched how it was working in practice and tweaked it until it seemed like it was striking the right balance. I might have erred heavily on the side of allowing people to speak to the point that I was constantly fielding complaints from people wanting me to remove something they said shouldn't be allowed.

And furthermore, you're right. If this catches on then lemmy.ml might be able to silence dissenting views. That would be terrible.

[–] auk 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't see anything about preventing corporate landlords from buying it all and renting it back to us.

[–] auk 4 points 1 week ago

Everyone played their part, I'm sure.

And yes, it's funny as hell. That's why I wanted to spread the word!

[–] auk 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I almost let it happen, so I could post this after the fact. It would have been much funnier, but I wasn't sure about the implications of banning thousands of users one by one, probably including myself and the bot.

They're still neck and neck, with the bot still just barely behind the highest-ranked user.

Edit: I swear to God, this just happened as I was typing this message: MediaBiasFactChecker is now lower-ranked than the negative of the highest user. We've crossed the threshold.

[–] auk 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The source is the video. I found a news story about the event, but it was cringey, so I decided the video spoke for itself.

[–] auk 0 points 1 month ago

Oh no, my MeowMeowBeanz!

[–] auk 1 points 1 month ago

That's fair.

Like I said, I think this is a borderline case. The comment in question could be concisely expressing a political viewpoint about your posting and how it relates to a growing movement in American politics to give harsh criticism to Democratic politicians in ways that, intentionally or not, give aid and comfort to a takeover of the system by elements that are an existential threat to everybody in the US, on every side. Or, it could be just content-free hostility. It's hard to tell, and since the poster in general is a certified non-jerk, I erred on the side of leaving it. But I can understand the other side of it, absolutely.

A handful of people gave me reports that your postings were "unpleasant," which I objected to in order to protect your right to say what you want. I feel the same way about someone who has a generally good posting record coming in and being Zionist or leaving a bluntly rude comment about the topic of an article.

I get it. You're not wrong. I think it might be worth me adding an entry to the FAQ, along the lines of:


Q: This isn't pleasant!

A: "Pleasant" was the wrong word. People will sometimes say things you find unpleasant, potentially more so than on Lemmy usually, since the human moderation is lighter. That's by design. Many Lemmy communities contain a large amount of content which is "polite" or "civil" but which in the aggregate is detracting significantly from the experience. I do plan to allow content which is offensive, up to a certain point, as long as it doesn't become a dominant force.

The theory is that we're all adults, and we can handle an occasional rude comment or viewpoint we don't like. If someone is a habitual line-stepper, then they will get escorted to the door, but part of the whole point is that the good actors can be free of a moderator looking over their shoulder on every comment deciding whether or not they're allowed to say it.

That's not to mean this is a "free speech" community. If content that's offensive for the sake of offensiveness starts to proliferate, then I'll probably put rules into place to address it. But you will find content that is not "pleasant."


What do you think?

[–] auk 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If someone walks up to an American cop who's engaged in watching a protest, not otherwise doing anything, and yells, "fuck you," that's easy to interpret as a statement about policing and freedom of assembly in America. It's not personal to the cop. It's protected.

If someone is walking around handing out flyers about how the Democrats are a cult, and someone takes a look at the flyer, looks up, and yells, "fuck you," that's easy to interpret as a statement about the message the flyer is sending. I don't think it's personal to the person handing out flyers. If it proceeded from there into insulting the person directly or threatening them, or anything like that, it would become a personal attack, but as is, I thought it was easy to interpret as a reaction directed at the message you're sending, not the beginning of an interpersonal conflict.

I'm not using "protected political speech" as any kind of criterion. I'm saying that in general, I would like to let people say what they want to say, and in particular to give extra leeway where speaking hostility to a person in power, and it didn't seem like a clear personal attack, so I decided to leave it.

[–] auk 1 points 1 month ago

Let's call it /c/jerks and cut right to the chase. /s

I think /c/politics may have been better. "Pleasant" is only confusing everybody.

[–] auk 1 points 1 month ago

I don’t understand, is the bot operating in pleasantpolitics, progressivepolitics, and lemmy.world politics? Multiple?

The bot reads a large number of communities to form its decisions, including those. It only actively moderates !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net.

I’m not trying to defeat the purpose for a bot or anything, but those who would welcome a second - and final - trump administration can expect some pushback as I have no interest in harboring some fediverse version of The_Donald or whatever tankie equivalent there is. I would be happy to avoid those if that was the intent for any of the above.

Is this community coming across as a The_Donald equivalent?

Pushback is fine and encouraged. I intended for people to be able to talk to each other, whether or not it's friendly.

There just doesn’t seem to be a community for it at present other than progressivepolitics or politicalmemes. Opinion pieces, one-off comment screenshots, or anything that isn’t directly a mainstream article or “funny” is hard to find a home for. Politics requires an article with a verbatim title, news requires same with a mainstream source - those are the only ones I’ve seen with more than 50 subscribers.

Yes. The moderation model on political Lemmy is strange to me. I think we can let people post, and kick out the obvious trolls and bad actors, and leave the rest of the people to sort it out, because we're not jerks. The incredible list of rules and procedures for being allowed by the moderators to post, in most communities, applied to the jerks and the normals alike, doesn't seem to line up very well with what will create a good community.

Fwiw the “fuck you” was directed at the Grauniad article, which “joe biden’s cold heart” is inflammatory to start, regardless of how it tried - and failed - to spin it in the body of the article. Firstly it’s not true, secondly it’s been shown in a “major” publication to not be the case (WaPo or NYT, i forget), thirdly “gEnOSiDe jOe” is a russian-troll-farm-like tactic to depress turnout, and lastly the actual existence of American democracy is very literally at stake in this election and the article is intentionally oblivious to that. I stand by the “fuck you”, it is deserved, appropriate, and all things considered, tame compared to the offense.

That was how I decided to interpret it, which is why I left it up. Can you see how it could be interpreted as personal to the poster and short on details, though?

I think everyone has a hair trigger right now on this topic. The article was inflammatory. Your response was inflammatory. In most of political Lemmy, that spirals into people giving short hostile responses to each other, and it spills out across the comments and creates a giant hostile spiral. That didn't happen here, but I am trying to keep a close eye on how things are working.

Say what you want.

That said, if defense of democracy or an understanding of American politics in one of these communities is intended to not transgress ‘politeness’ as determined by downvotes, I’ll try to participate accordingly. It may ultimately just mean I avoid the community, but that too is okay if that’s the requirement.

I think I need to rename the community to something like "asshole politics." It's supposed to be useful. It's not supposed to be friendly or need to be pleasant. All I was saying in the DM to you was that I thought what you said was potentially too short and hostile to be as useful as it could be, not that I as a moderator was telling you you weren't allowed to do it.

view more: next ›