this is so reminiscent if the digg Exodus around the aacs key. bans pushed us to reddit, and at a higher rate than those being banned. Lemmy mau is up over 10%. idk if the bleeding can be stopped.
uninvolved users will stay with it. digg had 2 or 3 major redesigns before I stopped hearing about it completely. it became little more than yahoo! news.
I'm sure that is the fate of reddit now.
I don't think eating fish is cruel, nor inherently harmful to the planet. the methods of fishing that have developed, and the scale of modern fishing are problems, but for me to choose to abstain from fish would not mitigate the situation.
so you are moving the goalposts from efficacy to ethics. that's fine, but I don't believe eating fish is unethical.
libs gonna lib
Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted.
you can't produce one.
I'm trying to discourage you from making baseless accusations against other users. those accusations can be phrased "this is what propagandists do" or similar. that's a total cop out.
if someone is spreading misinformation, most communities and instances have a rule against that; report it. if someone is saying something that is true and happens to align with known propaganda, the situation gets very sticky. if you feel you must refute something unsaid, I strongly recommend that you clarify, before and afte, that you are not making some accusation against the particular user.
personally, I would simply nuance their oblique fact to try to reframe it in a way that doesn't benefit the (suspected) propaganda message, or leave it alone.
accusations of shilling are fucking toxic to the community. it requires a high level of proof.
Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.
you don't actually know what the reality is. you are choosing to spread fud.
If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue.
no, it's a red herring. either what they are saying is true and reasonable or it is not. poisoning the well with implications of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
an accusation of bad faith is almost always itself bad faith. you can explain the problems with someone's claims or reasoning without accusing them of intentionally being dishonest.
cows aren't raped, or tortured.
so is usually killed if it is male
this is said as though they are just killed and left to rot. the vast majority are brought to full weight before slaughter
nothing's going to fundamentally change