No, in fact they would consider the doctor too "woke" for them.

Sadly, the Supreme Court has been ruling a lot of ridiculous things lately.

Sometimes I think writers just try to find things to be edgy about. The straws this grasps at it are incredible. Might as well complain from the billions of unpaid man hours people provide by providing common courtesy for free.

They've slowly grown empowered into full-on racism, so it's no wonder they also generally have no problem supporting apartheid and genocide in the Middle East.

The trick is not to kill them yourself, but have factories and animal farms do it while deluding yourself into believing that there is a humane way to killing a living being when the reality is there are only less painful ways. Also, from the other side of the aisle, the trick is to delude yourself into thinking that animals would have any problems eating and preying on you. If cattle had no place in human society, their numbers would significantly decrease. What does that say about human societies with large socioeconomic disparity who are treated by cattle by the rich as they get increasingly automated?

There's no point to this comment, it has been released into the wild so that it may be free.

If people informed themselves, there would be no Trumpers.

If the voters that mattered bothered to look at records, there would be no Trumpers. Sadly, I feel it has to be shoved into their face in the most traditionally stereotypical matter. Harris might seem to be doing good, but here is how good Hillary was doing before she lost to Trump: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

The problem isn't on the left, it's on a weighted and loaded electoral system that favors those most likely to be susceptible to misinformation.

Anyway, since it's beside the point as Harris seems pretty set, I just hope it does not play out like Hillary versus Clinton and hope that she gets elected. This times are different, but so is the degree to which people have bubbled themselves within their social networks and the most able to discern it are those who own them, who are basically in the same league as Trump and quite capable of shoving money and influence into them.

That's one thing to remember, troll factories don't just shove out the same piece of propaganda. They try disenfranchise, disinterest, and even guide the people they don't want to win towards candidates and policies they know will play into their hands. Kamala Harris is certainly a good candidate - for democrats. She's not likely to influence Trumpers, and a more traditional candidate might have been more popular with anyone who really was undecided. A better option might have been to appeal to times when politics wasn't as divided, and I have even joked that someone like John Kerry with Mitt Romney as VP would have been a sure win.

From a personal perspective, if you are ok with it, it's education, and if you are not, it's indoctrination. The most objective and practical way to approach information is determining the reliability, truthfulness, verifiability and reproducibility of information provided by good sources over bad ones. Trying to do that for every piece of information is basically looking through spam.

A good education is not indoctrination, as it must be able to question itself for it to be good. Yet it must also curate against bad, flawed, or fallible arguments by necessity. There might be any number of curators and sources, but they do exist and they must be discerning. Allowing all and any type of arguments makes people a casualty of statistics of whatever arguments have the greatest presence in their attention spans, something easily stacked by troll factories, and can be saturated with disinformation and echoed through misinformation, making people consider the greys between smoke screens. Through this oversaturation, their perspective of the world can become quite indoctrinated if there is no discernment.

There are sites that try to do this like ground.news , but the problem I think is that you are misjudging which side has the people really willing to inform themselves and which just accept the information that is convenient for their ego.

No surprise.

Thieves who use cars during thefts usually use stolen cars. Yeah, I was able to get a license plate of a car that dropped them off once, it didn't seem to do much since it hasn't stopped them from returning.

Doesn't matter, if a conversation is likely to influence someone, then that makes it the ideal target for a troll factory. Troll factories also don't just influence one side, they influence any "factions" people might crowd in. The most straightforward solution is eliminating high noise-to-signal ratios, in other words, misinformation and disinformation, and being transparent about it.But that will never be effective against people who just don't care about the noise-to-signal ratio and just care about the information that satisfies their ego. It will never be effective against cults.

There's a reason we need to filter out spam, and there's a reason we need to filter out disinformation and misinformation, it isn't just factions, but yes, it will necessarily devolve conversations into factions because some of them just don't curate the quality of their information.

I think that Lemmy is just step in the road towards a better system. I frankly would prefer a system that was truly federated - where communities wouldn't be hosted by a particular server, but rather, just a group of moderators and curators you could tailor, where each server could remove the messages they each deem to offensive by the most flagrant violators but it would be up to particular moderators / curators you choose to curate the comments that would show under a given tag and whose upvotes/downvotes should be discarded for a more fine-tuned experience.

Regarding upvotes and downvotes, requiring at least a reason and showing who made a downvote would definitely be a plus in my book, and would allow you to judge the reliability and judgement of people whom you might choose in your customized group of moderators/curators.

Education is a form of brigading a particular viewpoint, the problem in today's world is accepting information that has poor noise-to-information ratio, which gives a skewed view of things. Every site and instance should have a right to curate its content, and you can even develop dedicated information sources like ground.news if you want to look at how information is getting skewed.

But it isn't something that's happening equally across sides, because the sides that are actually being molded are those that respect the purpose and ideals of a government versus those that see it as a means to an ends, and it is the latter that has a much, much higher noise-to-information ratio which should be respected about as much as one respects spam.

In no small part because those types of people are the main developers and because, let's face it, they need a federated medium in case their disinformation campaigns in main social networks begin to be taken down (although given how much their owners like money and that governments seem to be doing shit all to abusive behind-the-scenes misuse of them, not currently likely at all).

I would reply, but you clearly are more interested in making your own answers for yourself.

What irony? Your comment is perfectly legible. Fortunately this hasn't turned out like reddit, where massively downvoted comments get hidden, and the moderators and admins who would ban you for your comments just being "too negative" are either localized to instances or are no longer present.

The only bad thing is you can't normally see and check out who's doing the downvoting, which promotes unverifiable suspicion since people are going to make up their own answer if none is provided anyway, otherwise it's mostly meaningless.

Downvotes are essentially useless in lemmy, and that has proven to be a good thing. It adds nothing and just proves that for some reason a large accounts are tagging your comment negative. If the comment is really bad, plenty of other options to deal with it. It isn't even a cohesive concept for everyone, some people upvote and downvote everything, they cannot think of a world where maybe you just don't have an opinion about something because you are either not interested or its outside of your scope of knowledge.

Part of the troll factory tactic is to make it a morally grey zone, because they know they have the money and the numbers to materialize it. Indiscriminately doing this is helping them in their effort to lower the information to noise ratio and make their efforts more indistinguishable from "the other side's" turning it into a "well, they would do it too, if they were as successful and had as much money and resources as us" argument.

And then people discovered how to exploit big data, social engineering, and social networks to begin uniting them in personality cults.

It might be CrowdStrike's fault, but maybe this will motivate companies to adopt better workflows and adopt actual preproduction deployment to test these sort of updates before they go live in the rest of the systems.