SoylentNews

This will be my final interaction with this site, which I have supported for several years. I even tried to lead a capital campaign to help support it barely a week ago, contributing a significant sum of my own money. It was a good attempt at an experiment.

Unfortunately, the past few days have reminded me that several of the admins and editors of this site have agendas that I disagree with. As I noted in previous journal entries, I strongly value civil discourse. I will admit that having perhaps a half dozen outbursts in my time here (usually when I was also under some personal stress), but none of us are infallible. Other than that, in my thousands of comments here, 99% of them have been trying to be productive, insightful, informative, and occasionally funny. I have never posted insincerely. I have never argued in bad faith. Once in a while, I will also admit to going a bit overboard in responding to a post that was acting like a jerk by acting a bit like a jerk in return, though I probably only went overboard to that extent a dozen times or so at most. Again, 99% of the time, I was trying to maintain a cool head and help promote better discussion on this site. My post history is there for all to see.

Several editors and admins here over time have questioned their commitment to civil discourse. Note that I have never advocated for getting rid of ACs or deleting comments or anything on that level. I believe in the idea of free speech, but I also believe that a community has a right to choose to listen to said speech or not. I believe moderation is intended to be a way to highlight to the community types of posts that are more likely to be valuable to the community, along with noting those that are disruptive as well as of low value to the community. As a recent thread has shown, there's a lot of disagreement in the community about the appropriate use of downmods, particularly (but not exclusively) the use of "troll" mods.

One takeaway I had from reading through the hundreds of comments on that thread is that there were several members of the community who used "troll" mods for things that aren't strictly trolling (according to some standard definitions), but they felt they had no other choices among the moderation options that fit the problematic quality of said posts. Quite a few of those posts were upmodded, many to +5, indicating that many in the community approved of these non-standard uses of certain downmods to address problematic posts. MartyB took a pragmatic and reasonable outlook in his first editorial commentary too -- calling some individual moderation decisions "small potatoes." I agree with him that no moderation will ever be perfect, and some people will always moderate in a way that other disapprove of. I've also argued in the past that individual moderation of individual comments should have less impact on community consensus of reputation (i.e., "karma"), particularly from one user directed repeated at another user. We seem to have solved that problem through occasional intervention with modbombs, but I think it's a larger problem that karma should truly be a reflection of community consensus from many users over time, while individual posts should be downmodded (or upmodded) at will for their quality, without a strong judgment that effectively is an "award" or "punishment" for behavior.

Janrinok was a notable dissenter in some of this early discussion, arguing that inappropriate use of moderation is a severe problem here and effectively viewing it as a sort of free speech issue. I sincerely disagree that it is anything like a free speech issue. Moderation reflects community consensus around posts. If we feel that a single mod is giving too much power in foregrounding or hiding some posts, then maybe we should consider expanding the range of post scores a bit. Janrinok seemingly doesn't get (or is willfully blind to) the fact that bad actors can overall lower our discourse here significantly, regardless of whether they meet some strict definition of "trolling" or whatever.

Janrinok the other day said:

If we cannot strive to meet the standards that we set ourselves 4 or 5 years ago then many will leave our community. One of the ways that we maintain standards is by having a moderation system that allows comments to be identified as being of good, or bad, quality.

We do NOT have moderations that allow comments to be identified as "bad." We have moderations that allow comments to be identified as "good," as well as punishment moderations that identify things that aren't really comments -- just games that trolls and such play. Actual comments that are "bad" -- like displaying factually incorrect information, or comments that are basically "non-responsive," or comments that clearly don't even understand an issue that's being discussed -- we have no way of downmodding those without using a questionably appropriate "punishment" mod. I'm not saying we should necessarily have such moderations as downmods. Maybe they should be neutral (like "disagree"). I don't have the answers. But we don't actually have effective ways of identifying bad comments, only disruptive interactions like spam and trolling that don't really even count as comments.

To be clear, I agree with Janrinok in that I don't want people to moderate solely based on difference of opinion. I do think it's right to downmod for several reasons I will outline below. Quoth Janrinok again:

If, however, that is what the community wants then we must be prepared to say goodbye to many of those who make valuable contributions to the discussions and, more importantly, are probably responsible for a significant part of the donations that we rely on to keep running.

Well, I'm leaving, because we aren't calling out the trolls ENOUGH. So take that as you will.

I know I'm not the only one because I spent much of the past week arguing with ACs and registered users on this site who feel that their voices are suppressed or that this site has been taken over politically. I defended this site, as I always had in the past, because I believed in the moral integrity at least of our site managers. However, I no longer believe that to be the case; hence my departure.

The Mighty Buzzard -- the other admin who was very active and vocal in the above-linked thread -- explicitly came out in favor of promoting hate-speech on this site. I know that "hate-speech" is a trigger word for some of you conservative folks, but (again) as I said above, I'm not arguing for any speech to be banned on this site. And I know that the term "hate-speech" is frequently used very broadly. But it is wrong to say, as TMB says, that "offense can only be taken, not given." There are things that civilized society understands are problematic within civil discourse. In the U.S., it is illegal to incite a riot. It does not fall under First Amendment speech protection to do so. One similar act in an internet forum is the type of speech that incites flamewars or otherwise disrupts discussion. I brought up the example of Jmorris (although I didn't name him), who commonly posts here both in insightful and trollish manners. But one thing he frequently does is to throw in some random anti-Semitic comment. This is not something one does in civil discourse. It's not intended to be funny. I'm not sure whether it's always serious or sometimes trolling, but it's just not productive to discussion here. It should be downmodded, regardless of any other contributions the comment makes. To not do so is like accepting a student in the class who volunteers to come up and work a problem on the board for everyone's benefit, but then urinates on the wall. You don't celebrate (or upmod) such behavior, regardless of how good his solution to the problem was.

And yet, TMB says it's not a problem. Maybe if such a comment gets to +5, we might consider modding it down as overrated, but otherwise an admin of our site is fine with high-scoring anti-Semitic comments here. In other comments, TMB made clear that he is also fine with high-scoring false information on this site. Yes, he argues that one way to combat false information is to provide correct information in reply. But he sees nothing wrong with that false information post continuing to have a high score.

Janrinok -- pay specific attention to that, because it is precisely what Azuma was trying to explain to you. That attitude is a "post-truth" attitude. It is an attitude where "all opinions should be heard," even when they are objectively and factually wrong. But it is a way that civil discourse is disrupted and ultimately destroyed as one cannot tell what is true and false anymore. We are living in a society where that breakdown is occurring -- whatever scores high in social media is what gets passed around as "truth." TMB wants that here as well. Furthermore, if such posts carry along a little extra negativity about the "Jews" or some other racial/ethnic/whatever slurs, no problem! As long as it a post says something of value, it deserves a high score in our community. We're supporting a bunch of jerks who just want to say something clever and then piss on the wall. Yes, that's what this site is.

You combine these things with an argumentation strategy that consists mostly of bluster -- just ignore any useful points or clarifications your opponents make, and steamroll through as if you are right, frequently acting calm while gradually pushing the edge to get people to accept more and more of your bullshit -- this is the strategy of self-identified trolls like Milo, who TMB supported in the past. Whether or not we want to use some sort of strict definition of "troll" that includes this stuff, it's a term that encompasses the behavior of people use self-consciously have used the word, like Milo. It's about a campaign of disinformation, of insincere argumentation, of getting people to accept bad actors as the norm, of pissing on the wall while objecting that you are a "good guy" for solving the problem on the board if anyone complains.

TMB has admittedly behaved himself a bit more in the past year or so, a trend which I have noted in the past. But when he comes out and says such things -- advocating pissing on the wall in this community as behavior that should be scored highly and not downmodded -- there needs to be swift and decisive action from the admins here. TMB is a liability to this site, specifically. In recent days, I've come to also question the behavior and opinions of other admins here too. I'd like to believe that the majority of editors and admins here are still acting with good faith, but with a known troll in your midst who is so prominent on this site, it is impossible to maintain integrity. I have come to realize that the ACs I fought this week to convince them of the values of this site, and even unhinged folks like Aristarchus, have a serious and legitimate point about the integrity of this site. As Azuma and others argued, the admins can't just ignore bad behavior from TMB and others in their midst, as well as the various occasional trolls here who are not admins -- they must call it out consistently and swiftly. And those who are granted privileges as admins, editors, etc. who cannot promote the integrity of this site need to be publicly called out and have privileges revoked, unless you want any user here to assume that their behavior is to be imitated and normalized on this site. (And it is not enough for TMB to say, "I don't have any say in what's posted" or whatever. He's one of the most prominent posters on this site and also everyone knows he's an admin of some sort -- his behavior needs to reflect the propriety of this site, if it retains any integrity anymore.)

I really did not intend this post to begin as a complaint primarily about TMB. Because he's only a small part of the problem. The problem here is the attitude that agrees with him, that doesn't value truth but instead is only about "winning" arguments, that encourages trolling and bad-faith posting on a whim, that says "meh" when disruptive and hateful speech is normalized. Once again, I am not arguing for censorship or deletion of posts. You have a right to say what you want. You do not, however, have the right to demand that others listen to you. As Acid Andy remarked insightfully on the "troll" mod thread linked above, I've seen very few troll mods on posts here that make legitimate arguments or state opinions in a respectful manner. (Perhaps the most insightful post among the hundreds there.) It's not about Emily Post fake etiquette, but it is about a culture of respect. This can be a place that enjoys an "off-color" joke occasionally without also promoting random anti-Semitic screeds. It can be a place that people can have sincere politicized disagreement without modding up false information. It can be a place that people assume good faith and try to respond with good faith, but also one that downmods those who act in bad faith or disrupt.

And sometimes those latter moderations can be wrong -- but listen to MartyB's original point above, as well as consider other ways to solve that moderation problem. Moderation should not be about reward or punishment: it should raise up the comments that are good for the community and lower those which are not useful to the community. That should be the intent, even if imperfect.

Lastly, I have severe concerns about the integrity of this site's governance. For years, as reflected in my posts, I have defended the integrity of process on this site. I do believe most admins and editors are likely acting in good faith. But my experience two days ago when I announced I was leaving created a rather disturbing situation. I do not feel it fair to leave this site without pointing out the potential danger to this community.

TMB posted one of his typical "ignore your points and just act like I'm correct and responded to you" posts, and admittedly I responded with a shouty and angry post. (That was also in response to some of his other posts referenced above.) I'm not proud of my reply, but I simply do not otherwise know how to react when an admin and prominent member of this community makes statements that so clearly go against what I believe about civil discourse. So, I wrote a journal post (not as long as this one) calling the other admins to action against TMB, to stand up to him. I also called out some of the stuff Janrinok said for criticism. I then declared I was leaving, and submitted my journal.

The next morning (yesterday), I woke up and just was curious to see the fallout, if any. I came to this site as an AC at first and tried to find the journal entry. It was gone. I logged in, and I still could not find it. I posted about it, because it was incredibly disturbing to me and a true affront to free-speech on this site. But I could see how after my attempt to run a sort of "pledge drive" last week, my financial and comment contributions, and my repeated defense of the integrity of this site... after all of that, a journal entry publicly announcing my departure due to severe problems with the admins of this site could be a public-relations problem. I never believed TMB or his allies would go so far, but there was the evidence in front of me.

I know that those reading this have to take my words on faith that I actually posted this journal, and it has been deleted. I know it's not TMB's usual modus operandi. I don't even know it was him. I just know that previously when I "took a break" from this site, I left for quite a while (and didn't even read comments), so maybe someone expected that I would do so this time and just wanted to get rid of the evidence. Now there's too many admins paying attention to this issue for something like that to transpire with this journal entry. (I hope.)

There are reasons why I specifically remember how I made this post and why I'm sure it was rightly submitted, which I've explained here. I don't have a screenshot or anything as corroborating evidence, but several things about this whole situation are weird (as I noted).

Some will brand me as a liar or conspiracy theorist or whatever for saying this. I know this. I'm just telling you, honestly, what I believe -- and that is that the integrity of this site is seriously breached and that I now believe it's possible many of the ACs (and even Aristarchus) who tried to tell me of the serious flaws in the management of this site are actually correct.

I leave this as a warning to the community. I encourage you all to seek out other forums and to leave this place, if you value integrity. Again, I can only offer my years of good comments and good behavior on this site as proof that I do NOT make such accusations lightly. Absent a serious audit and purge of some of the managers of this site, I see no other remedy.

I personally have also realized that my individual efforts are better directed at something productive online, rather than arguing about and rehashing divisive and polarized bullshit over and over. For years before I became active here, I contributed much more actively to a question-and-answer site online (which, notably, has much more successful moderation than here, though it's a bit more draconian, if entirely community-enforced). Yesterday, after alerting the community here of the breach of ethics, I spent a few hours there answering questions to help people who needed help. For the first time in a while, I actually felt good about my online activity. There are a lot of bright people here: I encourage you to consider devoting your energy to projects that will advance knowledge, value facts, try to understand others' positions rather than "win" arguments, and promote civil discourse in the world. The only way to save the world from the trolls is to adopt positive values such as these (which may not be an exhaustive list, but it's a good start).

I hope you all have nice lives. Farewell.

You probably saw who said that, so I don't have to mention his name.

But you know, there are all those tax and other incentives that sent the jobs overseas. He could, like, take them away? Without sounding like a crazy man? Even if he is?

What is there to say? Genius! Got the whole world in a fishing net...

Imagine for a moment, what if a pro se (self represented) party took a battle to the courts, and the court just copied and pasted arguments from the government's lawyers. Imagine if the pro se party cited dozens of binding cases, and the courts didn't bother to refute or cite any of them. Imagine if judges would disregard the rights of pro se parties completely. Imagine if they did this over and over in many different cases in secret opinions hidden from the public's eye that they don't publish. A shadow (in)justice system, in other words.

Would you still believe in those that say we are better than China or Russia? That we have justice? Would you still believe we live in the land of the free?

If not, what would you do? Do nothing? Call you representative and complain? Hold a town hall protest? Burn the flag? Sigh and say there's nothing we can do, all politicians are corrupt?

Answer the question, suppose this were the case, would you be okay with how things are? What would you want to do?

America’s federal deficit will expand by about $800 billion more than previously expected over 10 years, primarily because of two legislative packages approved this year, pushing the nation further into levels of debt unseen since the end of World War II, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The CBO also said that the impact of higher trade barriers, primarily President Trump’s trade war, could hurt economic growth amid widespread fears of a recession.

The United States was already expected to hit about $1 trillion in annual deficits next year, an unusually high number, particularly given that deficits normally contract during sustained periods of economic growth.

U.S. deficit to expand by about $800 billion more than previously expected over 10 years, CBO says

It's not happening fast enough. He has a plan

I've seen so many stories posted here and elsewhere in the past couple years about the new beef alternatives like the Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger. I've heard the Beyond Burger is less meat-like, so I've waited to hear of an easy way to try the Impossible Burger. With Burger King making a big launch of it earlier this month, I finally decided to give it a shot today.

I ordered the Impossible Whopper, and (because I don't really know that I could remember what a regular Whopper tasted like) I ordered a regular Whopper beside it for comparison. I've read a lot of reviews, and I was interested in trying the Impossible Burger as many reviews claim it's enough like real meat that you might eat one unknowingly and not realize it wasn't meat.

Let me also clarify that I don't eat a lot of burgers (maybe once or twice per month), but when I do, I like real beefy burgers. I almost never order them out, because I'm almost always disappointed. I'm the guy who has experimented with grinding his own meat and blending different cuts together to make a better burger. I usually don't go to that trouble, but I do like grinding fresh to my liking and cooking real beef. I prepare burgers generally with a minimum of spices and filler to let the meat flavor come through. I know what real beef tastes like in a burger.

And the Impossible Whopper tastes nothing like real meat. It wouldn't fool me for a second. Now, I'll grant you that the actual "regular" Whopper also barely tastes like real meat to me, but it's still quite recognizable as a variant on those awful frozen burgers that family member you don't like buys a giant box of and feeds you on the Fourth of July or whatever. (Everybody knows those cheap frozen burgers, right?)

What does the Impossible Whopper taste like? I don't know, but it definitely has a sort of "essence of veggie burger" quality about it. Don't get me wrong: I actually like veggie burgers sometimes and occasionally order black bean burgers too. I have nothing against the veggie burger. Nor do I have anything against vegetarians -- I don't eat meat a lot of days and occasionally go for weeks or longer without eating significant meat (sometimes only used in small quantities for flavor or something). But the Impossible Whopper tastes like a veggie burger. Texture is more meat-like, I suppose, and it had a nice char (which is difficult on some kinds of veggie burgers), but the flavor was unmistakably "not meat."

Here's the weirdest thing I noticed, though -- I expected the loads of toppings on a Whopper to hide the taste of the burger. (Some reviews I've read said this explicitly.) But I found the best "meat-like" bites I had from the burger were when I tasted the patty by itself. Some of it was the char on some bits, but somehow the burger by itself -- while still not quite "meat" -- tasted much more "neutral" and less "veggie" when I tasted it by itself. When combined with all the rest of the toppings though, for some reason the flavor immediately screamed out to me as "does NOT taste like beef!"

There's no way I'd mistake this for beef, and there's no way if someone handed me a burger that tasted like this, I'd just assume it was beef. Maybe, just maybe, I could buy the idea that this was someone's strange excessive spice/additive concoction that transformed a beef patty into something that tasted less meaty, but there is something unmistakably "off" about the Impossible Burger.

I'm not saying I didn't like it, mind you. I'm saying it didn't taste like meat. The actual "regular" Whopper patty was relatively flavorless, so I wouldn't rate that high either. And if you asked me to choose which one had the better flavor, I'd have to say it was pretty close to a toss-up (with the "real" one barely winning out) -- but that's because I actually don't mind eating the occasional veggie burger and don't mind the "off" flavor.

What I'm struggling to understand is the market for this stuff. I've had other types of veggie burgers I've liked at least as much as this burger -- they're less meat-like in texture and flavor, but they have good flavor too. But most people I know who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons likely won't step foot into a Burger King, because of its huge connection to factory farms and meat/beef (which is environmentally costly), even if Burger King could grill the burger separately. And the other people I know who eat veggie burgers and such on occasion usually do so for health reasons to avoid so much red meat, but the Impossible Burger has nutritional facts that basically make it as "bad for you" as a typical fast food burger, along with some questionable new additives that are barely FDA approved.

Who is eating this thing? Why? For those people who may have had an Impossible Burger experience better than I am likely to have had at Burger King, would you suggest that I try it elsewhere? Or do you agree with this assessment?

I've been learning to sail dinghies. I live a very long way from the sea so I sail on the local pond. It's been staring me in the face for years and a few months ago, missing the sea and boats in general, I decided to sign up for some courses.

I am fairly used to motor boats and have sailed aboard small yachts very occasionally a long time ago, but I figured I'd give it a try on my own as skipper.

I have a certificate now that means I can be let loose on the village pond in the company of a safety boat (captained by a young whipper-snapper shouting at me when I sit on the wrong side of the boat etc). Sailing a dinghy is very undignified. They tend to capsize, and it happens even to the best of us. What's more the pond water is green. It's not healthy like the sea.

Still, I went sailing on the sea with my dad again recently, and for once I was able to advise him about the trim of his sails.

I inadvertently excluded AC posts on my previous journal post. Apologies. And I don't think I can change comment options on an existing post. So I'm making another post in case others want to comment here. (And folks: let's keep the nonsense out of here, please. I'm opening comments up for discussion about the good of this site.)

As noted there, I have made a new donation (in addition to my previous subscription) of $200, and I've pledged to donate $100 more if we can get at least up to our semi-annual goal of $2000 by the end of August. See that linked journal entry for more thoughts on why we should do this.

Sulla has said there may be some Blackberry prizes available for those who donate, and he has donated $100 himself (as well as asking for someone to match him).

Will others join us? Challenge others? Pledge a match if we meet the goal?

[EDIT: Please continue discussion on this topic at this new journal entry. I inadvertently excluded AC comments here, and I don't think I can modify this post's comment policy.]

I've reflected a bit on a significant event that happened this week. To me, it was a really extraordinary thing. This week, SoylentNews went down for a while. I noticed something was weird when I looked at it in the morning, but by the time I had any opportunity to spend time on the site, it was live again.

A site like this that's powered entirely by volunteers experienced a significant hiccup, various solutions were tried, and it was resolved and restored as best as possible within a matter of several hours. That's really something.

And given that there seem to be questions about Slashdot's commitment even to anonymous posting and free speech anymore (let alone all the various complaints many of us left there for years ago), SN serves as an important place on the internet.

Because of that, I just made a donation of $200. I am already a subscriber to this site, but I donated again today. I'm NOT looking for any applause for doing so -- if anything, I'm hoping to encourage others to do the same. Perhaps even shame those who have never subscribed into doing so.

To that end, I will make a further pledge: IF OTHER DONORS CAN GET US UP TO OUR $2000 FUNDING GOAL BY AUGUST 31ST (roughly 2 weeks from now), I WILL DONATE AN ADDITIONAL $100 to SN.

The minimum subscription for a year is $20. That's less than 6 cents per day. Even if you look at this site once per week, that's 39 cents per week. Do you get any information or entertainment or other value out of this site? Why do you come back? If you do, please hit "Subscribe." I know from things said in comments here that many people make a lot more money than I do. If you can give $100/year, that's 28 cents per day. Think about how much you may pay for coffee or lunch out a few times per week or whatever, and ask yourself what value this site gives you. If you have some flexible spending money, give up a nice dinner out or two this month, and make a donation to SN.

Nobody asked me to do this. As many people know, I've had issues with this community at times. But the editors and the submitters and those who maintain the code and servers here -- they deserve our applause. And they need money to keep things going. Our Founders (according to the site info) incurred significant expenses to set this site up and have never been repaid properly. They deserve to. And the maintainers here deserve to have some extra cash in reserve in case things don't always go so well one year or something.

What did those guys who got our site back up the other night ask for? Nothing. In the long comment thread linked above, an AC made a comment suggesting a donation, and MartyB replied. Most other people just said "thanks."

But I see many usernames who said "thank you" who don't have a subscriber star next to their name. I know you can voluntarily hide it, but I wear it not to brag, but instead to shame others into thinking about subscribing. I realize some people may not be able to afford much or even anything. I know for some people even $20 out of their annual budget may be a significant expense to worry about. I want those people to be welcome here too. But consider -- even if you can only pay $5, that's something. That helps keep the site going.

(An aside: I also think it should be possible to "earn" a subscription to this site through volunteer work. If you are a site admin or editor and put in at least, say, X hours/year on this site, I think you automatically deserve to be identified as contributing to the community too. I would even be in favor of a special badge for that, but I also appreciate the egalitarian approach here -- so you guys at least deserve an automatic star next to your name, assuming you want to wear it.)

Also, lastly, I want to put out a call to the ACs of the world. Slashdot seems to be saying it doesn't want you. Most of the internet is saying it doesn't want you. SN welcomes you. Consider taking a moment and donating. I don't know if you can make an anonymous donation or not, or how that works, but I hope you consider doing so.

If you're already a subscriber, consider doing as I have done, and make an extra donation now. Give up a few lattes or pack a lunch a few times in the next few weeks, and give another $20.

I don't know if others have responded to MartyB's post, but the current ticker I see for funding says ~$210 out of $2000 for the second half of 2019. But that amount hasn't been updated since the site went down. I've already pledged $200 more toward that funding goal, and I hope others have too.

Again, I'll make another $100 donation if we can get to that goal by the end of the month. It's not a lot of money, but considering the time and effort put in by our admins to keep things running, it's well deserved. I hope others will step up and perhaps also offer a bonus donation. If we reach our goal quickly, I might consider an additional incentive for a stretch goal.