You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
Examples? Links?
Lurking makes me think it’s
@wikipediasuckscoop@lemmy.world
The last thread OP participated in features a comment from OP countering something said about Wikipedia by wikipediasuckscoop. Looks like that's who.
Wow. Thanks for sharing that profile... that is dedication to the niche issue of smearing Wikipedia.
Money makes the world go round
I'm looking for a job
Doesn't LW have a rule against desinformation and asking for reliable sources since the cat vegan food affair?
It only applies to misinformation that might cause significant harm to some organism, which doesn’t apply to this.
Personally, I don’t think that LW should make the attempt to police misinformation completely, since it’s sort of a judgement call a lot of the time. I think it’s better that people be able to argue out whether something is true or false, or intended disingenuously or not, all on their own without the mods needing to decide for them, because misinformation has such a big grey area that you can’t make an objective determination and be right about it 100% of the time.
I proactively remove disinfo accounts from piefed.social. Banned.
strongly recommend you look into Phillip's own activity: habitually stalking users, accusing them of spreading misinformation, and hiding their true intentions. his presence is toxic as fuck, and I don't trust their "analysis" one iota.
I think directly accusing people of spreading misinformation, explaining why, and letting them defend themselves if they want to, is a pretty good activity to do. Mostly, I only do it when something really annoys me, like for example someone claiming a free encyclopedia project for the internet is supporting genocide, kowtowing to fascist regimes, and many of their editors are quitting because it isn't even safe to contribute to the project because they will dox you whenever asked.
this is not the first time you have made spurious accusations of spreading misinformation. it's toxic as fuck. I wish you'd just get out of the fediverse instead of launching new instances when people start to ban your account.
Ah yes, spurious. For my part, I deeply regret that I accused him of being a genocidal cult, and posted an article that was all mad about how unreasonable it was that he was was attacking ANI and other governments, like Israel and Donald Trump, to the point that a court had to sanction him for it, and then later another different article about how unreasonable it was that he was kowtowing to ANI by doing what they court-ordered him to do, after some negotiation to make sure it didn't negatively impact his allies, while wholly misrepresenting the terms of that court order and saying that "many" of his allies were abandoning him.
That would be almost as if I didn't care at all about the factual consistency of what I was saying, and was just trying to attack him with anything to hand, for whatever bizarre reasons of my own. That would be crazy, man. It would be toxic as fuck.
it's possible he's wrong and you're still toxic. by pigeon holing him with musk you are creating a perception that has no basis in anything they've said.
you need to stop "researching" fediverse users.
just fucking stop.
What I'm accusing him is not at all just being "wrong." Anyone can be wrong, myself included. The accusation I'm making is that he simply doesn't care about the truth, and is willing to say even diametrically opposed factual statements as long as they both sound bad for Wikipedia. I think we should keep that off the network, or at least talk about it when it happens. That's not toxic. That is being interested in the truth.
What do you mean when you say "researching"? What do you mean when you say I'm pigeon holing him with Musk? I never said anything about Elon Musk at all, that I remember.
it's in the op.
just stop.
So, you don't have a reason, just "shut up shut up shut up." Okay, sounds good. If you have counterarguments that are not some kind of ad hominem, you're welcome to post them.
your sarcasm doesn't make you seem any less toxic
You're being so toxic that you're projecting your toxicity onto other people. It's very toxic of you.
I don't have a counterargument at all. I'm calling out your toxic behavior.
I'm aware.
because I'm not interested in arguing. I'm only interested in pushing out someone who routinely badjackets other users.
This sounds more toxic to me, tbf
I don't have any strong opinions on the matter, but I do have strong opinions about Phil's conduct.
Then put on a better jacket.
judging by how the votes seem to be panning out, people seem to think that you’re the one displaying toxic behaviour, and are kinda in favour of OP calling out and defending against genuine misinformation
getting snowed isn't something to brag about
being unwilling to change behaviour in the face of evidence that people don’t like what you’re doing isn’t something to brag about
I'm right, so I have no reason to change course.
You're acting pretty toxic from what I've seen in this thread.
Have you tried cognitive behavioral therapy?
So are you the same person as the linuxsucks and Wikipedia accounts?
Because that’s the vibe I’m getting from your posting.
Tbh I think that the Linux sucks guy is a different person
They’re the only 3 accounts trying to push that it’s brigading and needs to be shut down.
Plus they're so heavily invested into this thread to defend the accused and attack OP.
That all just seems hella sus to me.
Agreed. A lot of the things they're accusing me of overlap with things that can get me banned, and they all turned incredibly vocal about what a bum I am at about the same time. The "wikipedia sucks" guy has accused me of "stochastically" causing him to get death threats, apparently, by making this post.
They've all got a right to say all that stuff, of course, and I'm not sure it is productive to try to guess whether they are all the same person or are all saying the same bizarre things all at the same time for some other coordinated reason. I think my point has pretty much been made now, in terms of people seeing this post and being able to comment and read if they want to, at this point. I think their goal at this point is to try to push a narrative that I am "toxic as fuck" and did some various outlandish things and need to be banned or defederated, hoping that by sheer repetition it'll start to take hold.
do you think that because it's explicitly what I've been saying?
false dichotomy.
I'm not saying it has to be one or the other of those things. If I'd said "or" instead of "or are," it would be a dichotomy.
this is nonsense.
Was gonna say that I didn't see madthumbs in the thread, but his comment was right at the bottom, mentioned smt about cults and protecting smt. Given that's his only comment on the thread he still seems like a separate person.
no. but your research is about as good as philips
Your research into the research of Phillip and this other internet stranger is toxic as fuck bro.
having seen them repeatedly target other users, spin up new instances, and keep on doing it, I have no compunction about calling this shit out
I hate tankies too.
Yes, but for evidence to the contrary, we elected Trump.
I agree, but ironically you see this reason used quite a lot of !news@lemmy.world
!yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com has quite a few examples
Thanks! Blocked em