I know, lemmy.ml is kind of cheating. I just thought this was a little interesting.
Also, almost all of the upvotes for my comment came from lemmy.ml. I think as time goes on, the narrative is getting punctured despite these guys’ best efforts.
The point that I was making is that systematized fake participation in online forums has been developed and polished to an incredible grade of effectiveness in the modern era. I don’t think that’s as widely known as it should be, but among practitioners in the field it’s absolutely common knowledge and has been for a while, because of Russia primarily.
I do understand that some people have a strong negative reaction to hearing that. That’s not my problem and it doesn’t mean that me talking about that is “trolling.” I just thought it was kind of funny that, at least in the headline, these guys were saying they were testing whether it could be made effective when it is already extremely obvious to experts in the field that it’s extremely effective and these researchers have quite a bit of catching up to do. And, in fact, the voting of every single one of the lemmy.ml users except the mod who sanctioned it seemed to indicate it was taken in the same way it was intended: Relevant commentary wrapped up with a little bit of humor.
Again, I do understand that certain people in authority on Lemmy tend to throw massive hissy fits about anyone who comes in and frames things in a way they don’t want to hear. That doesn’t mean the hissy fit becomes my fault, or my problem, or that me posting it meant I was aiming for that to happen. I do get that it doesn’t take some crazy extrapolation to think the point of my post was “lol Russia sucks amirite,” but honestly, in this case, it wasn’t.
but among practitioners in the field it’s absolutely common knowledge and has been for a while, because of Russia primarily.
It’s only common knowledge because of circle jerk bad faith repeating of accusation. GOP supporters can hate immigrants and trans from mainstream GOP media, and even if Russian click bait farms are cheap, GOP paying them to amplify their message is GOP action.
The fantasy that Russia controls internet mind, but can’t get it to side against literal nazis diminishing it through proxy war, is contradictory.
Me: So, what rating from 0 to 10 would you give this response just in terms of raw coherence and how much sense it makes?
Claude: I’ll rate the response’s coherence and how much sense it makes on a scale of 0 to 10.
Looking at the response to the original message, I’d give it a coherence rating of 3/10.
The response has several issues that make it difficult to follow:
It jumps between multiple disconnected ideas without clear transitions or logical flow.
It contains unsubstantiated claims without evidence or clear reasoning (like “circle jerk bad faith repeating of accusation”).
There’s a confusing sentence about “Russia controls internet mind” that introduces a strawman argument not present in the original message.
The grammar is inconsistent, with missing articles and awkward phrasing.
It introduces topics like “literal nazis” and “proxy war” without context or explanation of how they relate to the original point about fake online participation.
While there are fragments of potentially valid counterarguments (like questioning the source of online manipulation), they’re presented in such a disjointed way that the overall response lacks coherence and fails to engage meaningfully with the original points about sophisticated fake participation in online forums.
Absolutely not.
The point that I was making is that systematized fake participation in online forums has been developed and polished to an incredible grade of effectiveness in the modern era. I don’t think that’s as widely known as it should be, but among practitioners in the field it’s absolutely common knowledge and has been for a while, because of Russia primarily.
I do understand that some people have a strong negative reaction to hearing that. That’s not my problem and it doesn’t mean that me talking about that is “trolling.” I just thought it was kind of funny that, at least in the headline, these guys were saying they were testing whether it could be made effective when it is already extremely obvious to experts in the field that it’s extremely effective and these researchers have quite a bit of catching up to do. And, in fact, the voting of every single one of the lemmy.ml users except the mod who sanctioned it seemed to indicate it was taken in the same way it was intended: Relevant commentary wrapped up with a little bit of humor.
Again, I do understand that certain people in authority on Lemmy tend to throw massive hissy fits about anyone who comes in and frames things in a way they don’t want to hear. That doesn’t mean the hissy fit becomes my fault, or my problem, or that me posting it meant I was aiming for that to happen. I do get that it doesn’t take some crazy extrapolation to think the point of my post was “lol Russia sucks amirite,” but honestly, in this case, it wasn’t.
It’s only common knowledge because of circle jerk bad faith repeating of accusation. GOP supporters can hate immigrants and trans from mainstream GOP media, and even if Russian click bait farms are cheap, GOP paying them to amplify their message is GOP action.
The fantasy that Russia controls internet mind, but can’t get it to side against literal nazis diminishing it through proxy war, is contradictory.
Me: So, what rating from 0 to 10 would you give this response just in terms of raw coherence and how much sense it makes?
Claude: I’ll rate the response’s coherence and how much sense it makes on a scale of 0 to 10.
Looking at the response to the original message, I’d give it a coherence rating of 3/10.
The response has several issues that make it difficult to follow:
Thank you for using coherence-bot, come again.