I don’t remember anyone saying 10 was worse than 8. Maybe buggier on launch, but stylistically it worked more like 7 than 8 did

Exercises on lichess are one of my favorite ways to kill time. Haven’t played a real game in years but I love the low pressure of running through little scenarios, even if I can’t always grasp why the computer thinks a particular line is optimal lol

(And you can do a bunch of them offline)

Also, “democracy” on a platform where anyone can have as many accounts across as many instances as they want is doomed. If anything you’d just be offering those power-tripping, time-flush aholes an extra veneer of legitimacy.

I don’t believe for a second that 90% of top posts aren’t already being manipulated to some degree, even if just by an individual with a bunch of extra accounts. It’s just too easy to do for it not to be the case.

I love a story with a happy ending

But how would a user on A find anyone on B before federation? I know Lemmy can initiate federation through the search function just in case you’re the first to look for something on another instance, but I don’t see how that would work on Masto.

On desktop there should be a small “about” link in the bottom left, from which there is a “moderated servers” dropdown menu where you can see defederated servers. I don’t see anywhere to view the servers you ARE federated with, but if it’s listed at Mastodon’s official website (whoops, I actually meant this)it’s probably in.

I don’t see anything on the official Masto app, but that app is just missing a ton of functionality in general.

If you actually have a group of peers that consistently challenge each other and have scholarly debate, congrats. You’re in a very small minority. You personally not having a use for arguing online doesn’t mean it’s useless. I know plenty of Americans who have been convinced that gun control is important by things they’ve seen online.

Very few people in this thread are kidding around. It’s worth pointing out that most of the things they are saying are extremely shallow.

It is not a place for nuanced debate.

Why not? Compared to other social media it’s way better equipped for reasoned debate, with an easy-to-read layout designed for mountains of text and ease of linking sources. Maybe c/memes isn’t the right place but considering how serious the rest of this thread is I’m pretty sure my spiel was worth it.

Maybe the people in my social circle are just a lower caliber than yours, but I can’t remember the last time I got asked to source an opinion irl. Most of my friends already agree with me. Hell, offline, most people aren’t willing to discuss politics at all. Even saying you have opinions on politics is basically a faux pas…

I’m gonna say some stuff that most of the people here probably know on some level, but considering this thread, I think it needs to be explicitly said.

Very few of the people who post comments on the internet are highly educated in whatever field they’re making a claim in. Getting challenged by people who know next to nothing and receive all the upvotes anyway is an exhausting experience, so many well-educated people keep their debates private. If they are here, you probably aren’t enough of an expert to recognize them. The simple, easy to understand takes are what get upvoted, and in-depth, nuanced ideas are almost always ignored or ridiculed. Most forums are full of people who know just enough to feel confident in making calls for radical action without any knowledge of how that action could be implemented or would play out.

Look through this comment section. Lots of vague, single-sentence arguments about being “capitalist,” “communist,” or “socialist,” along with “leftist,” “liberal,” or “conservative,” but I don’t see a single one acknowledging that each of those words can individually encompass vast groups of conflicting ideas and have wildly different meanings in different parts of the world; a serious problem considering at least a few of the people posting in this thread aren’t in the US. Very little discussion of substantive ideas like “people should be given a universal basic income of $15 a day,” or “food stamps should be granted without application to anyone under a certain income threshold,” or “social media servers should receive public funding and be administrated by an elected body.” It’s almost never more specific than “universal healthcare,” or “abolish the police,” Those might be the right direction, but when was the last time you saw people discussing things like whether experimental treatments should be covered, or the number and type of professions that should replace the current myriad of roles police are expected to fill? I seriously doubt if you randomly selected two self-described communists (or whatever ideology) on Lemmy and had them start making decisions together, that they would agree with each other on exactly how society should be run even half the time.

I’m not saying these conversations shouldn’t happen, vague as they are. I certainly don’t have the energy to write out long arguments 99% of the time. We all have to make our own way to finding deeper knowledge, and building a knowledge base of buzzwords can be a useful stepping stone. But far too often people stop once they feel they have a sufficient understanding of the buzzwords and then start talking like they know the answers. it’s important to temper the depth of your convictions based on where you’re having the discussion, where you’re getting your knowledge. Are you watching youtube videos and reading unsourced comments, or are you reading research papers from institutions with a history of making accurate claims? Are you reading news articles from ad-supported papers, and if you are, are you checking whether those articles are making sources available for readers check on? Should I have bothered writing several paragraphs under a meme of a glowing red bird, and am I really qualified to tell people to be more careful with their discussions?

she’s just taking a break while wearing her favorite barrel, she’ll be back up on her own two feet in no time