I know. I did not downvote and I really don’t get why people feel the need to. Your comment is completely accurate - it makes no sense to impute any intentions to these people in disguise. My only point was that the people in the photo should not appear like that for the election in any case.

Be that as it may, people wearing masks or costumes have no place in a polling station.

Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d’être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That’s the misery of the world of work: it’s not usually the best who get into management positions, it’s not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It’s the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can’t afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It’s only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.

Don’t clog the toilets. It’s not the c-suites who have to clean that up.

Unfortunately, as a German citizen, that is exactly what you would expect. In hardly any other country is the Israel lobby as strong as in Germany. In Germany, it is very easy for the supporters of the Netanyahu-regime, because the strategic accusations of anti-Semitism against anyone who even mildly criticizes the inhumane actions of the Israeli government weigh all the more heavily here. Regardless of whether it is legitimate criticism of a state - that doesn’t matter at all here, nor does it seem to matter how many international laws Israel may break or how many innocent lifes the IDF may take in order to pursue the inherently racist Zionist ideology this State stands for in recent days.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

It’s not some anonymous force forcing you to act like many of your fellow citizens do on social media. It’s what the US believes, I’m affraid. Even on Lemmy. It’s all “I don’t like Trump” but strangely enough many still agree to some of his key positions when his name is not mentioned. It’s weird.

You might want to check out the Patriot act (especially section 215) and how that plays into your believe of your constitutional rights. If there are any questions, just ask Clarence Thomas - he knows his stuff. I really don’t get how you could be so blind to issues like that just because this post is about China. This is not a popularity contest - it is not US vs the world. This is about your rights, your data and your democracy. I’m from Europe and I’m kinda getting tired of reminding people from the US that your blind patriotism is just that…a blind spot that is used against the US citizens on every corner.

1984 is already a reality - in every country of the word, especially the US. Apple’s famous Superbowl commercial from the same year, which suggested that data privacy (…) was important with regard to their strongest competitor at the time (IBM), does nothing to change this. On the contrary - none of this was even halfway true even back then. I really don’t get why people think this is just an issue in China. It is an issue all over the world. For years and years.

That is certainly not wrong. However, I believe that it’s not just the Chinese but that the US government (and other states around the world) has very far-reaching access to its citizens’ data as well. Among other things, the Patriot Act makes it very easy to demand user data from companies without appropriate checks and balances, if the NSA is not already aware anyway. Without somewhat decent legal regulations such as those that exist in the EU for example, citizens have to trust that the state will not abuse this largely unregulated power. With regard to the question of who will form the next US government, I see a significant problem in this context: I think that Trump’s right wing GOP will use this power against their political opponents and also, as a precaution, against ordinary citizens. I don’t think they would shy away from setting up a surveillance state based on the Chinese model - the conditions for this are certainly met in the current legal situation.

I think the only way to solve this problem for good would be to tie social media accounts to proof of identity. However, apart from what would certainly be a difficult technical implementation, this would create a whole bunch of different problems. The benefits would probably not outweigh the costs.

Sure, 1$ for 5.000 high quality posts - but only if it is content that you would otherwise only find in scientific journals; no AI stuff, of course.

This is a terrible idea for a site that relies solely on user-generated content and even user-moderation. It’s not like Twitter hasn’t tried this before - didn’t work out so well, I’d say. But hey, this concept probably works for the upper management. I guess it doesn’t matter to them if all that’s left is scorched earth, as long as they can cash out.

You can find a lot of stuff over at hugging face - open source stuff as well. This for example for background removal.

This is presumably not a bad thing, as Google would most likely have benefited the most from this, especially as the so-called “privacy sandbox” that Google had planned as a replacement or server-side tracking are even more difficult to avoid. The “privacy sandbox” in particular would have been more of a competitive advantage for Google because, as the provider of Chrome, they are the only ones who have comprehensive access to aggregated user data that is collected directly via the browser.

Ok, noted. Will try to do better. Just one more followup question: Why do you think my presumptions are unfounded? I mean besides that you seem to have faith in the good of all people and don’t seem to think that there is such a thing as computational propaganda.

Well, I guess we have to agree that we disagree then.

Is your argument that it’s okay to spread hate and slander without providing any evidence as long as people aren’t getting paid? Also, what makes you so sure that these are private accounts?

I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience. Nevertheless, I think that a certain basic skepticism is important in social media, because it is simply a fact that many interest groups on the internet are fighting for sovereignty of interpretation and use enormous resources to assert themselves - even with very questionable methods. This of course makes it difficult to build trust and have an open discourse. The advantage of Lemmy, however, is that at least the platform itself does not interfere too much, like Meta, X or TikTok do. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a much higher probability that you will be heard with your opinion, message or whatever, if you can provide good arguments for your point of view. Sure, there are some viewpoints that users reject despite good arguments, but from my Lemmy experience so far, that seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule.

It is certainly true that other interest groups also engage in propaganda (or PR, as it is called these days) in both traditional and social media. But that’s not what this thread is about.

Anyway, you can perhaps even see something positive in the fact that the usual PR and opinion manipulation methods are now apparently also being applied to Lemmy, because this shows that whoever is responsible for these campaigns obviously ascribes a certain importance to this platform and thus also to the Fediverse - and that is somewhat of a good thing, I guess.