flamingos

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So I looked up 'Immortal Chess' and it appears to be s site akin to Lichess and now I'm just confused.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 26 points 1 week ago

The Greens having a 2 point lead over Labour with 2024 Labour voters is really quite damning. Really goes to show that the strategy of alienating people that voted for you to win over people that never will isn't the most sensible.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

The Times reports on a separate letter signed by a 100 different Labour MPs, so the rebellion could be bigger, though the article says ministers believe the rebellion will still be confined to dozens.

Also, it's 83 MPs that need to rebel to defeat the govt.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 1 points 1 week ago

https://feddit.uk/post/28825432/17190982

This link only works for you and admins. Others will just see an error page.

Btw, don't down vote the same comments with your alts, some instances run scripts to look for this behaviour and ban people.

I also don't get why you're feeding the trolls like this, a simple report like 'Cell me Leni alt' would suffice.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The comments in question were removed last week and our internal position has been clarified, that there's no need to change our working definition of transphobia, albeit with some new considerations to allow people to talk about the transphobic actions of the British state. We want to make a statement, but the others seem busy with things outside of Lemmy.

I'm currently working on some guidelines for c/uk_politics to help potentially less informed users navigate the current situation without inadvertently being transphobic.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Hopefully they're more attentive to this than they are for their Lemmy instance (lemmy.one).

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

TERFs don't want trans people using any toilet. TERFs want to push trans people out of public life, and ideally to stop existing all together, by making existing in it as difficult as possible.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 12 points 2 weeks ago

“So we pointed out, secondly, that this claim was based on entirely unfounded speculation, which also ignored factors that might result in lengthening the lives of Gazans, given the public health situation existing in Gaza prior to the war, including the extent of obesity. These factors include the possible reduction in the availability of confectionery and cigarettes.

What a ghoulish thing to say, really speaks to how nasty this man is.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry if it came across that hostile, I tend to be snappy after waking up and we've had a lot of transphobia lately.

Are the terms afab/amab still okay? I try and use them as opposed to “biological women” as I heard that one could be a dogwhistle before

AFAB/AMAB are fine, encouraged even. 'Biological women' is generally used by gender critical types as a dog whistle to mean that only cis women are real women.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

My warning was very pointed and specifically about rhetoric, not the actual underlying opinions.

Give me examples on why I shouldn’t use the term “cult” here, yet how it’s okay for other users of this instance to claim a large amount of the British population is in a cult simply because of their religious beliefs..

The trans cult thing is a common talking point by transphobes to discredit the idea of being trans, that it's nothing more than brainwashing. I really don't know how you expect "I don’t know who’s leading this movement, but it starts to seem like some weird cult" to come across, but it reads like you saying anyone with a more progressive opinion to you is in a cult. It's very easy for someone to make the jump from that to believing you think trans movement more broadly is a cult, especially given you're a transmedicalist.

Also, that comment by Hossenfeffer is clearly made in jest and, unlike trans people, Christians aren't a marginalised identity in Britain.

Thirdly, this place is where I get to hear the other side. Do you really want to force me to use an echo chamber by banning me?

No, that's why I gave a warning. I don't think you appreciate how much more leeway you get because I understand you come from a conservative background. You constantly say you're bad with this and when I try to clear up the boundaries of what I consider acceptable, you accuse me of engaging in cult-like tactics. Maybe I was too curt, but I'm trying to help you. I'm trans myself, so I hope you can appreciate why I'm sensitive to this stuff.

There’s no need to read between the lines here. I barely know what “dogwhistling” is nevermind people accusing me of doing it.

I'd really appreciate if you did read up on it. I can only moderate based on what you write, not what's in your head. I and others can't tell the difference between genuine ignorance or pretending to be ignorant to sneak bigotry in under the radar. The Green Party has a good page on trans/queer dogwhistles.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Sick of acting like what, having a different opinion and telling you to fuck off when you call them part of a cult? Like, how do you expect shit like "If I was going to be a transphobe, it would be because how you lot" to be received?

Also, first and final warning, I consider the implicit 'trans cult' stuff here to be a violation of our 'no transphobia' rule.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Flax, this thing where you walk into a thread about trans issues and your only contribution is calling people crazy and pedantry is getting really old. It doesn't make you look smart, you just come across as someone trying to mask their transphobia (and no, I'm not calling you a transphobe).

 

Zack Polanski, who has been deputy leader since 2022 and serves as a London assembly member, will challenge [Carla] Denyer and [Adrian] Ramsay this summer despite them taking the party to its best-ever general election result last year, winning four seats.

Polanski told the Guardian he believed the pair had done a good job, but that the Greens needed to meet the challenge of Reform UK, which has a membership about four times bigger than his party and surged to a mass of victories in Thursday’s local elections.

“People are done with the two old parties and we’re in this dangerous moment where Nigel Farage is absolutely ready to fill that vacuum,” Polanski said. “We should never turn into Nigel Farage. But there are things we can learn in terms of being really clear in speaking to people.

“There’s an empty space in politics, where we’re not being as bold as we can be. Being sensible and professional are good qualities. But I don’t think they should be the central qualities.”

The Greens in England and Wales have about 60,000 members, while Reform have more than 220,000, a discrepancy Polanski said indicated the need for a change of direction.

“I don’t believe there are more people in this country who align with the politics of Reform than they do with the Green party,” he said. “In fact we know that, because when Green party policies are polled, they are frequently the most-liked policies, and we are the most-liked party. So why are people not joining?

“We’re not visible enough. I don’t want to see our membership grow incrementally. I want to see us be a mass movement. There’s something here around eco-populism: still being absolutely based in evidence, science and data – and never losing that – but telling a really powerful story.”
[…]
Polanski argues the party needs to take advantage of “massive” disillusionment with the Labour government, something he said was for now mainly helping fuel support for Reform.

“If you were trying to create the circumstances for the far right to rise, you would be doing exactly what Keir Starmer is doing now, which is protecting the wealth and power of the super rich,” he said.

 

Opinion piece by the TUC General Secretary:

There’s no sugar-coating it: Thursday was a tough night for Labour.

Voters sent a clear message — the same one they sent at the General Election. They’re fed up with the status quo and desperately want real change. The government must listen. But it must not panic.

Labour still commands a huge parliamentary majority and a powerful electoral mandate. That mandate was won on a promise to rebuild Britain, fix broken public services, and raise living standards after 14 years of Tory failure.

That’s where the focus must remain. Now is the time to deliver — and show the country whose side Labour is on.

The Employment Rights Bill offers a powerful opportunity to do just that. This landmark legislation will transform millions of lives by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending fire-and-rehire, and guaranteeing sick pay from day one.

These aren’t just good policies — they’re popular ones. They reflect the public’s deep appetite for change and stand in direct opposition to the politics of division. New polling for the TUC shows the Bill doesn’t just make moral and economic sense — it makes political sense too. Passing it will boost Labour’s standing and help cut through Nigel Farage’s hollow posturing.

Farage likes to pose as a “man of the people,” but his record tells a very different story. He ordered his MPs to vote against the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.

He supports NHS privatisation. And he idolises dangerous strongmen like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin — whose agendas threaten British jobs and security. Let’s take the fight to Farage where he’s weakest and expose him for what he is: a plastic patriot offering nothing but chaos and division.

Labour has nothing to gain from trying to out-Reform Reform. It will just bleed votes in both directions. But this government will be rewarded if it delivers the change working people are crying out for.

That means an unrelenting focus on the cost of living, rebuilding the NHS, improving schools, investing in skills and delivering an industrial strategy that brings good, secure work to every corner of the country.

 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published interim guidance following last week's Supreme Court decision. It instructs organisations that manage public spaces and workplaces to create segregated mixed-sex bathrooms, washing and changing facilities for Trans+ people to use.

It does this on the basis that same-sex spaces can only be used by people that align with the Supreme Court's definition of 'biological sex', while also saying that Trans+ perceived to be of the wrong gender can't use bathrooms that match their biological sex.

If taken beyond interim guidance and made statutory, it would be the biggest human rights disaster since racial segregation and apartheid.

The guidance covers workplaces, schools, and services open to the public, such as hospitals, shops and restaurants.

It stipulates that, where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing and changing facilities should now be provided. In an interim period, it sets out where this is not possible, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use.

 

A British Transport Police spokesperson said: “Under previous policy, we had advised that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) may be searched in accordance with their acquired sex, however as an interim position while we digest yesterday’s judgement, we have advised our officers that any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.

“We are in the process of reviewing the implications of the ruling and will consider any necessary updates to our policies and practices in line with the law and national guidance.”

 

Archive

At the beginning of January, the Instagram account FutureRiderUS was posting AI videos of a motorcycle riding through futuristic landscapes – hence the name. Those videos usually would get anywhere from 20k to 30k views. But then, the fires started.

The next day, FutureRiderUS posted its own flaming Hollywood sign video. That one got a million views.
[…]
How much money did they make? It's hard to say exactly, but we can estimate.

Instagram pays people through programs where creators earn money based on how many views their Reels receive. The more viral a video, the longer users stay on the app, which allows Instagram to show more ads. Instagram then passes on some of the profit to the creator. How much? Meta doesn’t publish those numbers, and it varies depending on the audience that is looking at them. But I asked a few influencers, and the recent rate seems to be around $100~$120 per million views. Jason’s reporting shows that Facebook was paid out a few hundred dollars for single viral AI generated images, and Meta has paid out more than $2 billion through programs like Ads on Reels.

Just look at FutureRiderUS’s most popular posts from a roughly 24 hour stretch starting Jan 10:1m + 24m + 6m + 6m + 45m + 4m + 8m ≈ 94 million views.

That’s 94 million views, from typing in some prompts. Conservatively, this is likely worth thousands of dollars. Not a bad day’s work.
[…]
In the comments section of their most viral post (45 million views) featuring a firefighter carrying two baby bears to safety, they posted a response to angry commenters [about the AI-generated content]. Three days after the initial post, they commented, admitting that the post is AI-generated. They said, in part:

“In this video, I aimed to shed light on the reality of what is happening. These problems are very real—animals are dying, homes are being destroyed, and firefighters are risking their lives to save others. They don’t have the time to produce visually stunning and powerful footage to raise awareness about these issues. That’s why I took the initiative to create something that could help people see and truly think about these tragedies. […]

Through art, even when created by AI, we can evoke emotions, raise awareness, and inspire change.”

[…]
This sort of defensive, it-doesn’t-matter-if-it’s-fake stance is something that we are starting to notice more, as it’s used to justify the posting (and monetization) of everything from Palestinians to flood victims. But we shouldn’t lose track of the context: the main purpose of this account is to make money. It says so right on the page.

On January 18th, as the fires were still burning, FutureRiderUS posted a Reel advertising their $19.99 course on how to create viral content online by posting AI videos: “Earn $5000 a Month with Viral Videos - Zero Experience Needed - Start Today and Watch Your Life Change.”

[…] And for the account owner to suggest that they are motivated by something other than money seems disingenuous. There are no donation links, no mention of local organizations. Instead, the only call to action is to click the link to buy their viral video course.

10
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/backend@feddit.uk
 

Upgrading us to 0.19.11 (well 0.19.11-feddit). It should be less than 2 hours at the maximum.

Join the Matrix room for updates if anything goes wrong.

view more: ‹ prev next ›