this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025

41 points (90.2% liked)

FediLore + Fedidrama

3125 readers

152 users here now

Rules

Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
When posting screenshots of drama, you must obscure the identity of all the participants.
The poster must have a credible post and comment history before submitting a piece of history. This is to avoid sock-puppetry and witch hunts.

The usual instance-wide rules also apply.

Chronicle the life and tale of the fediverse (+ matrix)

Largely a sublemmy about capturing drama, from fediverse spanning drama to just lemmy drama.

Includes lore like how a instance got it's name, how an instance got defederated, how an admin got doxxed, fedihistory etc

(New) This sub's intentions is to an archive/newspaper, as in preferably don't get into fights with each other or the ppl featured in the drama

Tags: fediverse news, lemmy news, lemmyverse

Partners:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

sexy_peach@feddit.org

"Anti-AI trolls," transphobia, fun stuff (quokk.au)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Okay so here's what happened.

There is a mod of some AI-generated image forums who has been slinging out bans for "anti-AI trolling" to people who have never participated in their community, apparently more or less at random. Full disclosure, I am one of those people, and I'm confident I have never done any anti-AI trolling.

Apparently the justification for this is that other people are being aggressively hateful to this mod, coming in and being incredibly abusive, transphobic, insulting her for alleged alcoholism and making fake pictures of her and generally just being horrible. Conveniently, one of these people showed up in the thread where we were talking about it, on cue, and started slinging around horribleness which provided a convenient cover for people to say "And THAT's why we have to be really strict with the bans!" type of things. We never really got to the bottom of what the connection was between that and the random bans to other people who were longstanding accounts that didn't seem to be doing any of those things.

Anyway, now another abusive alt of the (now obviously bannned) abusive alt that originally stirred up trouble has made a pitch-perfect effort to inflame divisions and create a balkanization between the "pro AI" people, centered around dbzer0 (edit: ~~and blahaj~~), and "anti AI" people, centered around everywhere else.

This is two identical posts, made to two separate communities which are guaranteed to have totally opposite takes on it based on their different levels of information about the issue, which will then lead everyone to assume that the other community is just being horrible about it on purpose when they draw different conclusions:

(Edit: The troll has now been banned, so I can't link to their posts anymore. Just imagine this post, except made by one of the trolls who are featured in the comments of that post, you can dig in the modlog or in spoiler text of some other comments to see some of what they were saying. Anyway, the troll posted the exact same complaint about being "unfairly" banned both to lemmy.world, where they got tons of sympathy and upvotes, and to dbzer0, where people who were aware of what they were up to gave them derision and downvotes.)

Like I said, if the goal is to create division and heated argument between two opposing "camps," this is pretty much as perfect as you can get it. I expect it to work, at least to a certain amount, to get people embittered towards one another and arguing about the issue impassioned that the other side is wrong and stupid.

I can't find the link right now, but there was someone on reddit who claimed that they used to do this professionally (trying to disrupt online communities so that organized shilling could succeed better there, because the previous coherence that they had had had been replaced by confusion and bickering, and then they could insert bullshit without it being pushed back on as strongly.) It's fascinating. What they described isn't exactly like this, but it definitely sort of rings similar to me. Just to throw that out there.

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

Edit: Fun with grammar

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"pro AI" people, centered around dbzer0 and blahaj,

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, maybe I was wrong. I thought there were some blahaj people in the grouping that was saying "yeah this makes total sense" but I don't see it looking back now. Maybe it was in the deleted threads or maybe (more likely) I entirely hallucinated it, I'll remove that part.

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

Idk, it's entirely possible that there's one or two of them on here, but from what I've seen it's definitely not the majority opinion, that's all I'm saying.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

How am I involved?! I have nothing to do with this drama. I'm not the mod of those communities, nor am I the person complaining about any of it.

Only thing I've done is vote and comment in the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com community where the issues first came up.

Thanks, friend! :)

[–] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Man, someone going around harassing mods by making 'fake pictures' of them.

Gee, I wonder what they could possibly be using to make those fake pictures, huh.

Glass houses.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Next you'll be telling this mod isn't actually an unhinged alcoholic foot fetishist loser or whatever else they accused her of...

(I feel like asking for ideological consistency of the trolls is asking way too much, they're just not operating on that level even)

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hang on, you're telling me I can be randomly banned from AI communities?

How do I get my name on the list for sure? I don't want to have to just hope the randomness gods smile on me.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You could just block them you know.

I have no interest in communities dedicated to female celebrities. When they started cropping up, I blocked them (well until I found out it was mostly one user creating the communities and then posting to them, so I just blocked them, but... Same result).

Its pretty easy, about two clicks typically.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You could just block them you know.

Amazing how many on Lemmy refuse to do that, and instead just complain. lol

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why block when you can harass! That's more sane and normal, right?

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago

Right? And as for the people accusing me of sealioning, that is one of the most made-up, fake terms I have ever seen.

I had literally never even heard the word sealioning until someone threw it at me on Lemmy. I had to have it explained to me multiple times, and even after reading the definition, I still don't think it is a real thing.

I'm not that smart. So when I ask, "What does that mean?" it's because I genuinely do not know. But somehow, just asking basic questions gets me accused of sealioning.

I still remember the first time it happened. And then I asked what sealioning was, and my question got removed for sealioning. Lol. Good times.

And that goofy cartoon people always post to explain it still makes no sense in ninety percent of the cases where I see the term thrown around.

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I was hoping I wouldn't need to do any work and the AI people would just automatically save me from them.

Guess AI disappoints yet again...

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I don't think being banned prevents it from showing up on your feed. Best to block as you scroll.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 days ago

They might ban you preemptively, actually.

I'm just saying you have a readily available tool at your fingertips, which you could use rather than just complain about the existence of a community you apparently haven't even seen.

[–] PatrickStar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

There was someone who talked about this in fedilore a few weeks back, but they got dismissed because everyone thought it was an isolated incident. Those people look stupid now in my opinion.

[–] geekwithsoul@piefed.social 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was one of the ones banned from a number of AI communities despite not engaging with them really on my old Lemm.ee account. With UM involved, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised :) Sounds like just the sort of shit he'd have a hand in stirring up and just the way he'd do it.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

With UM involved

I'm not involved though. I have nothing to do with it. Someone saying, "universalmonk is involved!" doesn't make it real. Please provide any proof that I have anything to do with what OP is talking about. I'm not the mod of the community OP is talking about, nor the person posting that OP is talking about. I've commented on comment about the issue, as many are doing here right now, but I have nothing to do with the actual issue.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So, to me it's weird that there's such a large number of people (probably over 50% of the responses) that reacted to this by saying that it makes perfect sense. That's strange to me, I want to understand it, and I don't really. One possibility though like I mentioned is that people are deliberately trying to stir up shit between the instances for whatever reason. And then, out of the couple dozen people who happened to weigh in, up pops up your username, and you have a history of dishonest participation and trying to stir up shit. That coincidence is notable to me. Doesn't necessarily mean it means anything, it's just interesting. That's what I was saying.

Sorry if you took some (reasonable) offense to me calling you out by name. If it helps you understand it, maybe you could imagine that I changed my profile to say that I'm known for my defiant stand against weird bad-faith participation, and I'm still standing proud and won't be silenced!

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago

I've went ahead and DM'd you so we can continue this conversation. Based on you bringing my name up here, good chance someone will try to get me banned from here soon. Which is fine, but I'd like to carry on the conversation. I appreciate your logic, but not your conclusions about me.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the detailed reply. My defense is simple: if you check my history in the Ye Power Trippin' Bastards community, you’ll see I’m a regular commenter there. I even recently posted there.

I wouldn’t even know about the situation you're referring to, if it hadn’t been posted there first, and then picked up in discussion; conspiracies and all.

As far as I know, you’re the first person who ever brought my name into it. I only commented in the thread where it was being discussed. I’ve never posted in the community in question (the AI mushrooms or whatever it’s called), and I’ve had zero interaction with the people involved.

But here’s what happens when you attach my name to this stuff: people see it and go, “Oh! Universal Monk is involved!” They won’t look deeper, they’ll just remember the name and link it to drama. And that fuels this exaggerated, ongoing narrative about how supposedly “terrible” I am for Lemmy.

If you look back, the original hate I got was over posting news articles people didn’t like.

What’s happening now is way worse than anything I've ever done. I’ve been seeing Nazi-level comments, open transphobia, people mocking alcoholics, and the person from the original feud creating alts to spread outright hate.

You’ve made it clear over time that you dislike me and my posts. That’s fine.

But I’m still here, and proud of it. And no, I won't leave. Honestly, the days when I was considered the “villain” feel almost tame compared to the toxicity we’re seeing now. I’ve seen calls for murder, war, hate, bigotry. Those are the real trolls.

In fact, a large chunk of the people who bullied me and said I was a bot, horrible for lemmy, etc aren't even around anymore. They didn't quit because of me. Lemmy in general is become more and more hateful.

Me posting articles about third parties, and articles from all over the political spectrum and viewpoints, even from Breitbart or Newsweek or Fox News, is nothing close to what the person you are talking about has done.

That person legit made fun of a mod for being trans and being a recovering addict. I'm seeing more and more of that crap all over. Show any comment from me where I have said anything close to stuff like that.

You don't have to listen to me, maybe you have blocked me and won't even see this, but I am not every single thing that annoys you on Lemmy. Just because someone is doing something you don't like, that doesn't mean it's me.

I'll be honest. I am not a fan of you either, BUT you are always pretty logical and methodical in your posts. I appreciate that. But the few times I see you falling away from that logic and your good informative posts, while giving away to emotion, is when you bring my name up.

Dude, we don't have to be in an eternal war of words.

We can move this to DM's if you would prefer, so we don't have to bore everyone. Or we can stay here, I'm fine either way.

But I am not the enemy of Lemmy. And my socialist and anarchist posts and articles far outweigh any other types of posts I've posted.

I am not destroying Lemmy. Hate is destroying Lemmy.

I’m proud I didn’t get bullied off Lemmy just for believing in third-party advocacy before the election. And I still believe in it. And yep, I wear those words with pride in my profile.

You’re obviously free to keep on hating me, but at this point, it feels less like fair criticism and more like personal bias.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you look back, the original hate I got was over posting news articles people didn’t like.

I’m proud I didn’t get bullied off Lemmy just for believing in third-party advocacy before the election.

Look, I get what you're saying, it all sounds perfectly reasonable. But here's the thing: You're still not really acknowledging what the original issue was, why people might have got upset to this unnecessary apocalyptic level. You're sounding all reasonable and friendly about it, but you're still being deceptive at the end of the day. Maybe deceptive to yourself too, so you'll not really know even what I am talking about here, it's crazy and unfriendly, makes no sense, because all you were doing was posting news articles people didn't like, and randomly you got all of this violent hate, out of nowhere, for no reason.

Honestly, I think you know that's not how it happened.

I think I told you this before: To me I would be really good for you to just admit what the original issue was, and if it makes you the bad guy, that's okay in that instance, because it's reality. That's a good thing. Growing or looking back on your previous behavior in a bad light is a sign of something really positive. It's painful as hell sometimes, sure, that too. I'm not trying to come down on you, give you a hard time, anything like that, and maybe I do too much in general or I'm too careless about it. Honestly most of the reason I do that is because I tried to talk to you about it from a standpoint of being actually real, and you didn't want that, and so my reaction is "okey dokey buddy never mind." But the point is, making a bunch of innocuous math and fitness posts to turn over a new leaf and being friendly with your presentation is easy. Actually stepping back in a sense of honesty and saying "Yeah that was messed up, I shouldn't have (whatever), I get what people were saying" is a lot more hard.

It's up to you if you want to do that, don't just say it to say it if you feel like nothing critical of you had any validity because everything you did (or everything you're still doing, I have no idea, I haven't checked) was awesome and right. If it bugs you that people have a negative reaction to you -- and it seems like it does -- that's the answer. Just be real.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You're still not really acknowledging what the original issue was, why people might have got upset to this unnecessary apocalyptic level.

Cuz I’m still not sure what the original accusation was supposed to be. I think some people assumed I was pretending to advocate for third parties, but secretly voting for Trump. But that never made sense. Even if every single person who voted third party had instead voted for Harris, she still would’ve lost. The math doesn’t support the blame.

And let’s be real, those same people also claimed I would disappear right after the election. Yet here I am, still active, still advocating for third parties, and still posting socialist content all over Lemmy.

If I were actually a secret Trump supporter, why would I keep doing that? The election is over. I could drop the act and just post pro-Trump stuff openly if that was really my angle. People already assume that anyway. So why would I keep pushing socialist parties and alternative movements now? It doesn’t add up. Unless maybe I actually believe what I’m saying. And I do.

because all you were doing was posting news articles people didn't like

It's not my fault people didn't like them. Is there some rule that I can only post articles that people like? I posted from all different sources on all different political opinions. And I still do that. The vast majority is socialist and green though.

My entire post history is public: @Universalmonk@lemmy.world, @universalmonk@sh.itjust.works and my main name which is @universalmonk@lemmy.dbzer0.com.

Hundreds of articles on socialist, libertarian, conservative, anarchist, green parties. Why do you pick the ones you don't like and assume that's the ones that I represent? Why would I post all the others if I were just the one you don't like? What would be the point in that. My socialist and anarchist article links outnumber any conservative/libertarian article links.

and if it makes you the bad guy, that's okay in that instance

I have no problem with being the bad guy. As you pointed out, I put it in my profile. My profile pic is a list of shit people say about me. So why would I hide my motives? I stand by everything I say and do. Always have. I've never shied away from it.

Why are you failing to admit that the real reason people are mad is because they thought that my support for the Green Party and the Socialist party was to undermine the Democratic Party? But if that were true, why would I continue to support them after the election? Why would I volunteer for those orgs? And donate money to them? Jus to stick it to Lemmy?! Is that you what you actually think? Come on now, use logic.

Yeah that was messed up, I shouldn't have (whatever), I get what people were saying" is a lot more hard.

Because I don't feel that way. It's not my problem you are mad that the democrats lost. Had nothing to do with me or me posting on Lemmy. Lemmy isn't that important in the real world.

Why don't you admit all the people who accused me of being russian, being paid to post on Lemmy, being a paid informant for Trump, or that I would disappear after the election, were wrong? How come those people aren't apologizing or admitting they were wrong?

Lemmy is much more open to third parties now. Honestly, if I reposted every single thing I posted before the election, it wouldn't even be a blip on Lemmy these days.

If it bugs you that people have a negative reaction to you -- and it seems like it does

Well, I'll point it out, but to say it "bugs" me is a bit of a stretch. Again, look at my profile, I put the negative comments in my profile and call myself the notorious Lemmy outlaw who refused to bow to the duopoly.

And I still refuse to bow down the duopoly. I won't vote democrat or republican in our next elections either. I'll vote socialist, just like I always have. Just like I always will.

Just be real.

I have been, and that's why you get so emotional about it. I think that it would be easier for you to accept that I was part of some grand conspiracy because it fits your skewed view of motivations.

The reality is I lean libertarian-socialist, and I like to post links to articles with many different points of views. I'll post whatever I think is interesting, regardless of what Lemmy thinks of the sources.

You can sit there and mock my fitness comms, and my math comms, but I'm adding content to Lemmy. And sticking to my beliefs. No matter how mad it makes Lemmy.

Feel free to see !politicsunfiltered@sh.itjust.works I'm still posting all the different articles that I find interesting. I'm also not going to stop posting college stuff, math stuff, satanist stuff, UFO stuff, workout stuff, or socialist and anarchist stuff to those communities that I have started and maintain on Lemmy.

And now on Piefed. :)

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cuz I’m still not sure what the original accusation was supposed to be.

Got it. Okay, I tried.

[–] UniversalMonk@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well other than people think that I was trying to undermine the democrats by advocating third party. But I have given lots and lots of proof of how that wasn't so.

Is it something else? Here's what annoys me about your posts. You never just come out and say it.

So let's put it out in the open: Why do you think I posted stuff advocating third parties, which at the time were Libertarian, Socialist, and Green?

I don't wanna hear about sealioning or that I didn't back down, or the theory that I had 1,340 alt names, lived in Russia, etc.

No, I wanna hear from you, in front of everyone, why you, PhilipTheBucket thinks I advocated for voting third party. And if that would be nearly as controversial today as it was before the election.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

The dbzer0 admins and users are definitely creating a problem where there is none, even if there are some anti-AI trolls.

Take a look at this thread where a dbzer0 user was harassing people and using a handful of accounts to manipulate votes: https://lemmy.world/post/32430859

Multiple admins and users came around to start shit about anti-AI when the problem had absolutely nothing to do with that at all.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 12 points 4 days ago

Also, UniversalMonk is involved, because of course he is.

Ugh, the cancer of the fediverse

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So lazy to use AI to try to change public opinion.

Real trolls use memes.

Good work sniffing this out, I'm done with blahaj so I was only seeing the db0 side

People should know and remember there are always troll campaigns being ran in most social media spaces with any significant user base.

A couple of other current campaigns I've noticed across social media:

an ongoing attempt to frame antizionism as antisemitism
terfs attempting to sow division between trans people and the LGB part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
terfs attempting to sow division between trans men and women

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah. It is hard to tell the difference between people just being dysfunctional in a way that will cause pointless strife because they are dysfunctional, and people being dysfunctional in a way that will cause pointless strife because they are planning out how to cause pointless strife. I do agree with you that my guess is that at least some of it is that second thing.

It's sort of mind-boggling to me that no one involved in this "in authority" on the dbzer0 side seems responsive to the idea that this is a bad idea, will make their instance look bad, and also won't do anything to solve the harassment of the mod (will in fact make it worse).

But whatever ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Db0 has been making some questionable moderation decisions recently

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah. It doesn't come across as malicious to me FWIW. I feel like people are just tribal, and there's this incredibly strong impulse to stand up for "your tribe" be it the anarchists, or the trans people, or whatever, whenever you perceive that they're being attacked or mistreated. Maybe that's it, maybe it's just that it's such a minor issue that the admins don't feel like getting involved, who knows.

I feel like just like separation of church and state, there should be separation of instance and tribal grouping. Like no making an instance that's only for anarchists, only for the Marxists, officially anti-AI or pro-AI, or what have you. It seems like in practice it has been a tailor-made formula for producing drama with other instances. In general you notice the regional instances, they don't have stuff like this come up, it's just "hey we're the Canadian people come join us."

[–] funbreaker@piefed.social 8 points 4 days ago

Ten USD says any criticism of AI is being lumped in with the actual trolling.

[–] Luci@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I want to know what I did to be marked as an anti-AI troll. There are specifics in what trolling is imo so I'd like to know more, maybe even defend myself.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not the mod, but if you've ever down voted with no other interaction, my guess would be that. Or timing of a downvote coinciding with a bunch of others from other accounts, again as a singular downvote.

There is a tool which will coord down votes across multiple accounts, which is helping some trolls - notably the anti-AI trolls mentioned - coordinate mass down votes to try to avoid detection.

[–] lemonySplit@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Louder for the people in the back

"Downvoting (a single vote) on its own does not constitute trolling"

Its literally participating in the fediverse whether you cry over karma or not.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago

Weirdly this coincides with some drama on Reddit on r/trans, no time to do a rundown but the mods of both r/trans and r/AnarchyChess mentioned seeing an uptick in subscribers right before some of the r/trans mods decided to suck again.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I just blocked their whole instance the other day.

The only community I went to was the one to complain about mods, but they don't let anyone complain about a couple of instances/topics that the mod/admin agrees with.

The whole place is pointless and if they're not trolling intentionally, they're doing it because they're addicted to drama

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I just blocked their whole instance the other day.

Yeah, see, this is what I was talking about with this whole thing being to gin up pointless drama.

db0 is clearly fine. Being overtly "pro AI" makes them a little anomalous on Lemmy, but it's whatever, they have sensible reasons for it and it is fine. This kind of slap fight developing can lead to this balkanization where now one person is the "enemy" but no actually it's this other person that's the "enemy" for some stupid kind of reason, and now no one is getting along because they're all in little tribes that mutually hate one another.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

I just don't want to see shitty AI pics, and that's like the majority of their community.

A sprinkling of "how does a torrent work" and an incredibly biased place to complain about certain kinds of moderation, but it has a huge moderation bias itself...

I'm fine on all that

They're not "my enemy" I just don't want to interact with them

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (9 children)

The latest anti-AI alt made purely to harass Mystic seems to be banned and their content removed, so the links are broken, FYI.

Edit: Also your quotes around anti-AI trolls - which they literally are - is definitely putting a spin on the reality here. Makes me think your ban was entirely appropriate.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh. IDK why I didn't see that coming.

Anyway, the post before it was deleted was more or less a carbon copy of this post, except that it was made by one of the trolls, who actually do deserve to be banned. And so, all of lemmy.world took a look at that and said, "Yeah that's messed up they shouldn't ban you for no reason," and all of dbzer0 took a look at that and said "But you're clearly a twat so of course they banned you, YDI". I don't know if the two camps had a chance to have each notice the other and start fighting, but people are already talking in these comments about a reason to block all of dbzer0 as a result, which I think was exactly the kind of intended response for this to generate.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

people are already talking in these comments about a reason to block all of dbzer0 as a result, which I think was exactly the kind of intended response for this to generate.

Probably their goal, yes.

except that it was made by one of the trolls

Yep, I'm aware of the posts, I just wanted to point out two things - that they were deleted so no longer a good reference, and the quotes around anti-AI trolls - which as you say, there absolutely are, and were in that original thread you linked - comes across as dismissing the idea that they exist.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

comes across as dismissing the idea that they exist

If anyone is getting that impression, then hopefully me and others talking extensively about them and their real existence, in the post text and in the comments, will dissuade them from it.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago

I would hope so, but as we know many people dont read past a headline/title.

I'm just sharing how it reads when you put it in quotes. Like if I said:

Boy those people are "smart"

Wouldn't exactly come across like a compliment. So having it in quotes in the title reads, to me, like you're being dismissive rather than trying to differentiate users who got caught up, likely due to timing of their downvote, or down votes being their only interactions with a community.

Which, I will point out, takes some effort when its a small community, even on Lemmy.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments