My use case was basically managing a bunch of (headless) remote servers, so it worked really well.

My setup auto-ran tmux with a tiling config to give me 4 panes to work with when I logged in, with the top-right automatically launching my music player, and the bottom-right running cmatrix until I needed it to do something else. :)

I hadn’t heard of surfraw, that looks cool!

My wanna-be-mr-robot friend and I were using lynx, elinks, and then browsh for a long time when we were experimenting with terminal-only linux laptop setups. Lynx and elinks are good for true text-only web browsing, but browsh is better if you want a more traditional web browser, but just inside a terminal window. It is actually running firefox headless in the background to render the pages, so it’s much more resource-heavy than others.

There’s no real advantage to a terminal browser if you aren’t being forced to use one, in which case “having a browser” is the advantage, it’s just aesthetics (especially if you enjoy customizing your terminal themes, since you can make your lynx match it).

If your favorite celebrity is anywhere near this list, you need to do some introspection.

Hold onto it in case it’s needed.

Or take half, and have the admins/ mods choose 4-6 charities, and the community vote on which to donate it to.

At this point, you’re better of self-hosting, or even co-lo hosting. Cloud environments are good when you need to scale faster than servers can be shipped (or plan to scale down before the costs add up), but $5k a month is literally a new, decently-beefy server every 2-3 months.

In terms of solving the money issue, I feel like the only solution is a shared-cost/ shared-ownership model, where you get an initial pool of money together for the initial build-out, and then monthly costs are divided equally among all members. You can’t rely on donations, you need collectivism.

All my machines except for my gaming desktop are linux already. But there are still games with either DRM that doesn’t support linux, or other niche issues, so I’m keeping my Win10 machine alive for the foreseeable future.

Yes, they also of course ignored all my actual arguments in their response. Literally made a whole thing about how OP was not about positions just behaviors, I lay out how it very much was about positions, and the next response completely ignores that and pivots to something else entirely.

It’s almost impressive how much near-sealioning they did.

The problem comes in (to me) when people come in big gangs to all yell the same stuff, don’t really engage with people who disagree but just mischaracterize the opposition and repeat their points of view forever, basically just engage in bad faith.

You clearly aren’t intending this to be about this (OP’s) post, and yet…

That is my remedy.

I actually like your idea, and I think that it could work if there was some kind of set structure to the posts, maybe using a template to make it easy for an LLM to parse, and to prevent comments from asking more follow-up questions than allowed. My partner is involved with competitive debate, and I think a highly-structured variant could work in an asynchronous format like forums posts, especially if there’s a bot to auto-remove posts that aren’t formatted correctly (that part could just be a script with regex or something).

The tough part for me is that on the one hand, I want to believe that you are being earnest.

But the supposed prevalence of accounts who are both

• claiming to be adamantly anti-Democrat Leftists in America who would not be open to reforming the party if possible
• AND show signs of foreign account ownership

does not comport with my experience on BH. Certainly not at a level to constitute a group large enough to be who this post is about.

And seeing as I have previously seen OP accuse people of being bad-faith actors, who were (imo) clearly just in disagreement about politics, I am not willing to extend a benefit of the doubt to them.

Also, you keep making latent accusations throughout your comments:

some of these fake accounts

You haven’t even proven there are any, and yet half your comment is premised on them not only being present, but you having positively identified them. How am I supposed to take that claim as good faith?

This is the root issue with this post. OP is encouraging individual users to block people to create a walled-garden within a walled-garden. You say you’re not, but then what is the remedy you’re putting forth?

This thread is a witch hunt by definition, because it contains neither the means to accurately identify the supposed witches trolls, nor an actual workable, mutual, proper-process remedy. It’s literally calling for circumventing the mods with mob-action.

My take on a lot of this is that these sound like the strawmen positions that I’ve had levied against me before.

As in, especially during the last election cycle, I had people on BH who have no clue who I am (or that I would and did vote for Harris), trying to chastise me or accuse me of being a troll for “talk[ing] CONSTANTLY about how voting for Democrats would be a terrible thing that no self-respecting leftist would EVER do for any reason”, when in fact I was talking about Democrats’ failures in order to try to fix them.

The Democratic Party is at a huge crossroads right now, because it’s lost 2 elections to Trump that shouldn’t have even been close, and in both cases it was with candidates who either 1) had no primary to choose them, or 2) were in control of the Party during the primary. The fact that 2024 happened, and we’re still seeing these takes attacking Leftists (just calling them “fake” doesn’t make it so, no matter how much OP wishes it did), instead of saying, “hey, maybe the Centrist path of trying to work across the aisle doesn’t actually work to counter the alt-Right/ Trump-Right/ whatever you want to name their current brand of bad-faith political gamesmanship”, is breaking my brain.

We need to be discussing any and every viable path to fixing the party, not calling people who say the current incarnation of the party can’t win “doomers” or trolls, when many of our point is that we can win, if we fix the party.

One of them used non-American characters to punctuate a number, and then when it was pointed out they got confused and didn’t understand what people were pointing out that was weird about their number…

You’re speaking in generalities, and I have no way to judge what happened or was likely the situation, from this statement. You could be describing a random Cyrillic character that wouldn’t be on a non-Russian keyboard, for instance, or you could be describing someone using a comma for denoting decimal places, which is something a British or Canadian would do, even if they’re living in the US. I’m not going to denounce someone sight-unseen based on what you wrote.

I work in infosec, and attribution is difficult under the best of circumstances. If I had IP logs, request headers, UserAgent strings, etc, I might be able to spot a foreign national impersonating an American, but I don’t, and neither do you.

Actually one of the tells of those accounts is that they will sometimes accuse others of not being pro-Palestinian, and being rabidly pro-Israel, which as far as I can tell no one on Lemmy is.

I’ve seen at least 2 accounts on Beehaw, pre-election, who were rabidly pro-Israel. One of them disappeared completely after the election. The other I still see around, still often posting pro-Israel and Israel-apologist content and comments. So in my experience, your ‘tell’ is flawed by being based on a false premise. And that’s just Beehaw. Across all of Lemmy, including the center-right instances? There are absolutely staunch Zionists and pro-Israel users.

There are specific useful reasons why I think they are making that accusation, but if I were just doing this as a way of disagreeing with people, why would I take some person who is making a pro-Palestinian point which I completely agree with, and decide that they are a propaganda account just so I can “attack” the viewpoint I agree with?

Well, since you’re asking me to surmise ‘why’ you might do that, my dime-store-psychology take would be that you’ve probably been influenced by the large amount of propaganda takes both pre- and post-election, that keep insisting that the pro-Palestine movement online was being driven artificially in order to divide the Democratic Party (as opposed to actually being a signal that Israel was in fact no longer considered ‘good’ among Dem voters).

After we lost, many pro-Israel sources (even in congress) have rushed to blame the pro-Palestinian movement for it, because it allows them to both set up the pro-Palestinian movement as an enemy to the party, and to deflect blame from Biden’s pro-Israel stances for contributing to the loss, both of which serve their interests.

Surely you can see there is not a contradiction between “there are elephants in this room” and “let’s talk about one specific elephant in this room”?

Dude, that’s how I see it. Sorry if that upsets you. Not sure what else I can say about it.

I’m not OP. I actually don’t think blocking them is a good idea. I think disagreeing with them in a particular way, and talking about the problem in general to spread awareness, is the right answer.

The problem is that all of these work together. You’re in OP’s post, agreeing with OP, making assertions that you see these ‘behaviors’, while never once previously disagreeing with OP’s remedy. Severing out of a key aspect of their post, in one comment, at the bottom of a long comment chain, while only expressing agreement elsewhere? I think it’s fair for me to say you are boosting OP’s position.

…calling out particular types of behavior that I think are a real problem, and then we could talk about that without needing to accuse anyone of doing it because they are propaganda?.. That actually might be a better way to go, because there are surely non-propaganda accounts which would be in that category which we should be addressing, and then there is no risk of someone being “caught up in the net” so to speak when they are genuinely not doing propaganda.

Yes, that would have been a good route, rather than just agreeing with OP and talking evasively about fellow commenters being bad.

You said, more or less, that the issue is boxing out particular viewpoints. OP is clearly talking about behaviors and motivations (murky as that second one is to intuit), which is different. That’s the core of the misrepresentation.

No, OP is most definitely attacking specific positions, not just behaviors. Here’s a position-agnostic version of their list:

• Claiming to be part of the target group
• Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the target group
• Encouraging others not to vote or to vote for alternative candidates
• Highlighting issues with the target group as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the opposing group
• Attacking anyone who promotes defending their political power by claiming they are not true group members and that the attacker is “an actual member” of the group
• Using the group’s worst policies as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the parent political system
• Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism

These are generic behaviors that would make the post not specifically about a particular group of people that OP has an issue with.

The dead giveaway is the one I bolded, because OP’s version is specifying the Party itself, not simply the Left end of the political spectrum.

“Highlighting issues with Socialism as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Democratic party”, for example, would run afoul of my “behavior-only”, version, but not OP’s position-specific version, so the only logical conclusion (which the rest of their comments definitely support) is that OP would in fact not have an issue with the behavior in that instance.

I think @Thevenin has the right of this issue in both of their comments: https://beehaw.org/comment/4660421

I don’t believe doomer trolls are right-wing plants (though I acknowledge it’s a potential avenue of attack in the future). I don’t think they usually have ulterior accelerationist motives (though I have spoken with a few). I think for the most part, they’re just people who’ve given up, or otherwise mistaken cynicism for maturity, and seeing anyone else expressing optimism or trying to organize real-world resistance just pisses them off.

Side note: after our “discussion” a few weeks back, I went and read some of the interviews David Hogg has given since his Vice Chair win, and I’m pretty excited for how he’s talking about changing the DNC!

So now you’ve shifted from “you got them riled up”, to “there’s one specific person in these comments”. Thank you for proving my point about moving targets.

And before you try to claim you were using ‘them’ in the singular, your next comment was “They all speak sort of similarly to each other, too.”.

“There are people in these comments who are in the grouping I’m talking about” is quite similar to “there are people on Lemmy…"

“There are people in this room who are bad” is quite similar to “there are people in this country…”

Look through my history. How many times (for whatever timeframe you have time and inclination for) have I disagreed with someone, and how many of those times have I chosen to “attack” them in this way?

This is a red herring. OP is calling for people to exclude and block in order to box out political disagreements from being visible, not respond with attacking comments. I can’t see your blocklist, so I can’t see who you are ‘attacking’ in this way.

But you seem to be extremely persistent, here, in interpreting something OP is saying which has some widespread agreement as obviously that they are saying some other, different thing.

You’ve run this line with me before, and against others (including in this thread). What exactly that OP said did I misrepresent?

But regardless of that, talking about the problem in general is surely okay.

This is you directly asserting that people in this post are part of OP’s supposed group. This is and clearly never was just talking about the problem in the abstract.

These are contradictory statements.

I was not calling for OP to call people out, I was pointing out that their choosing not to do so meant that there was no way to repudiate the assertions. If someone who fits your supposed ‘pattern’ proves they’re not in fact a bot/ troll/ AI/ etc, you can just claim they clearly weren’t who you were talking about. It’s a set up for a No True Scotsman argument.

You use the standard straw man of “anyone who disagrees with you” being put in this category, but that is not at all what’s happening here. I disagree with people on Lemmy constantly and I very rarely think that this is what’s going on. However when I run into a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving, I start to think that the person might be a paid propaganda account.

Which is all well and good to claim, except that both OP and you clearly think some of those people are in this thread, based on your own comments, and many of the people disagreeing with OP here, I haven’t seen around much on BH, and none of their comments in here are doing the behaviors OP describes. That doesn’t look to me like “a very particular confluence of factors and ways of behaving”, it looks like you’re absolutely just using this as a broad net to attack people who disagree with you.

This is not talking about an attack vector in the abstract. You and Philip directly asserted that users in this post are part of this group, and even went on a little self-congratulatory rabbit-hole trek deciding that they’re probably AI as well.

There are examples, to be sure, but pointing them out or accusing them of working for anyone in particular would be counter-productive.

You already did that, the second you asserted that some people here in this thread are part of this group. Hiding behind, “oh, I’ll say they’re here in this thread, which means their usernames are here to see and speculate upon, but I won’t explicitly name them in my comment, so I can pretend that this is only abstract discussion” is just being evasive.

I’m seeking to illustrate the behavioral pattern, the weakness that it exploits, and the damage it can do, which I expect to have much more efficacious results.

You’re using terms like “behavioral pattern” to lend your post an air of scientific truth, but this is literally nothing more than rank aspersion. The list of behavior you laid out is rife with strawman positions and imprecise, improvable propositions.

How precisely do you define “Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left”. “Most” is a vague, moving target. What qualifies as “dismantling… power possessed by the left”? That’s an assertion of outcome, so are you asserting that you have some evidence tying posts here to a reduction in Leftist political power? Obviously not, but it’s a useful claim to use for attacks since you’re now working off a much worse impact than just political disagreement.

You haven’t shown any damage, but you certainly seem happy to use the mere claim of damage and “abstract discussion”, to call for direct exclusion or expulsion of people from Left spaces.

That’s why this is a witch hunt, and not an appeal for moderation rule changes.

There are an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims being made in this thread, especially wrt what these supposed maga-bot/trolls all claim or do.

If the post contained any actual examples of comments that OP believes are either bots or trolls, it might be possible to actually analyze whether their assumptions and claims have validity.

As it stands, however, making broad insinuations about the ill intentions of anyone who disagrees with you is not very Nice, and is certainly not Assuming Good Faith.

The mods here are very active, and very capable. We don’t need people starting witch hunts here to “root out the fake Leftists”, and based on OP and some others’ reactions in this thread, that’s clearly what’s happening here.

You mean Vim?

Man, I return my cart religiously, but I loathe that guy. Talk about self-appointed cop mentality.

He’s not changing anyone’s mind or behavior, he’s not actually making anyone’s job easier (I know, I used to corral carts at Safeway), he’s just decided to “annoy the annoying”, and thinks it makes him anything but also annoying. Not to mention he’s not doing this as some kind of unseen act of moral fulfillment, he’s literally doing it to make money. Karens are bad, whether you think they’re pestering the right person or not.

He’s not even a narc, because narcs report to someone with authority. He’s just taking it on himself.

/rant

Yes, but the architectures they are dropping are older 32-bit ones. That’s why I said support is “dying”, not “dead”.

The changelog itself notes that this is about 32-bit support:

Debian’s support for 32-bit PC (known as the Debian architecture i386) now no longer covers any i586 processor.

Understandable, but still kind of sad to see support for 32-bit dying. Mostly because it makes me feel old. :P