Banned for Voting Incorrectly?

Was recently banned from a whole bunch of DB0 communities for, as best as I can gather, downvoting once when I viewed by All (potentially accidentally while scrolling).

Important notes:

I don't use scripts.
I don't mass-downvote Communities. If I see a post I generally don't like when browsing All, I may downvote one post, block the Community and move on.
Some of the communities I was banned from don't have any posts in them so I wouldn't have been able to downvote anything.
Of all of these Communities, in my history I downvoted one post in one of them. Voting in this manner is not vote manipulation. It's quite literally a feature of the platform and as a mod of another Community, I would consider it pretty good etiquette.
One of my bans reads "Appeal Granted, not a brigading member" but I'm still banned.
I don't troll.

WTF is going on here?

EDIT - Updated Info from the conversation below: In the initial image, you can see two "ban waves."

The 10 bans three months ago stem from a single downvote in one Community. It was @Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com See here: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/34853477

I was called out by name for a single downvote and culled from a score of Communities I did not participate in by them.

The other bans from two months ago are from four total downvotes over a 10-month timeframe in one Community.

I have also stated in this thread that I don't have issues with AI-gen images, but there are shoddy ones and well-done ones.

EDIT 2: Now unbanned from the ten Communities listed as "3 months ago" in my initial image, but have been banned from three more because of this thread with the reason given being "self-proclaimed anti-AI brigader" which are two things I didn't claim to be. God dammit Lemmy...

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

426 comments

Right... but they do... so...
Irrelevant until we fix that problem. And guess what? Advocating for AI in the meantime is only going to give more power to corporations :) so great job, bud!
- I dont advocate for corporate AI.
  I'd also mention most users on db0 are far more likely to be using fully open models and models they've trained themselves (which is what I do, mostly log/error eval stuff).
  That said, "fixing" AI will solve nothing, because capitalism is going to find yet another way to screw them over. Banning AI tomorrow isn't going to provide job security or a stable income, it wasn't before and it isn't now.
  I work with a lot of creatives, and so many are contract based and struggle between them. Several of them have been finding work cleaning up (as in, creating new) materials that were AI generated and look terrible.
  So again, the issue is capitalism, and AI is just the most recent conversation piece. AI isn't the root of the problem, nor is the problem "solved" without it.
  
  No no, I'm saying "fixing capitalism" is necessary before advocating for AI lmao.
  
  "Fixing capitalism" is just ending capitalism, the problems are inherent in its design.
  In any case, you seem to be under the impression that all AI is just chatgpt, copilot, Gemini, grok, meta, etc. This is not the case. There are models trained entirely on peoples own work/material, models trained only on public domain materials, etc. Its just software and data, and the issue you are taking is - from your example - a capitalism problem, and has nothing to do with the software.
  So what you're saying now reads no differently than "We have to fix capitalism before we can advocate for Linux!"
  Would that make sense as a statement to you?
  
  That's a fair statement, but I think it's a more fair statement to say almost anyone hating on AI is usually referring to corporate AI in the first place. Also, the person whose behalf you're defending AI clearly thinks that the AIs being trained on other peoples' work is completely fine. So I think you jumped in on the wrong side tbh
  
  No, I'm pretty comfortable where I'm at.
  I think intellectual property is a functional element of capitalism, and capitalism is a problem. I support people directly, and could not care less about anyone downloading content. I also support the local art scene, through events and direct purchase of works.
  That doesn't mean that I think intellectual property (as a product) is sensible in any way.
  That said, all my models are personally trained on my own data, and maybe a public domain based model for basic language to put context to a detected issue. That doesnt mean I'm going to put down folks who use a local model trained on some degree of copyright works, because no matter what, those users aren't the problem. Corporations are.
  Because capitalism is a problem.
  I think it's a more fair statement to say almost anyone hating on AI is usually referring to corporate AI in the first place.
  I'd say its more accurate that the people who constantly hate on AI are ignorant of the tools and their use, and most often their position is nothing more than "capitalism is the problem" (see above) whether they realize it or not.
  And some will even go on to defend capitalism, which makes it even weirder to me.
  And considering some of the comments across this post, I'd say my perception is pretty accurate.
  
  Don't know what to tell you. If you don't see the issue with taking another person's labor and exploiting it for your own capital gain, then I don't know why you're even leftist. You sound more like an opportunist at that point.
  Corporations are the problem because they are exploiting and stealing other people's generated labor for capital gain. If someone else is doing that, it's still bad, because that's how corporations are started.
  You're right, capitalism is a problem. Abolishing capitalism is more important than fighting progress in AI development. But we aren't doing that. We aren't there. So AI's current existence and commercial implementation is a net negative to society at large.
  It's like a farmer who has painstakingly grown a full crop, only for a random person to walk up with a magical tractor that duplicates the crop instantly, but in a way shittier and inferior way, and then is able to undercut the farmer by as much as they want because they basically have to perform no labor. And then the farmer is given the opportunity to "heal" the harvested crops, but you know. For a lot less. Since the other guy already did the "work".
  And yeah, I'm not generally that worried about people with their own LLMs or whatever. But they're not exactly free tools. Not everyone has equal access to them. If we existed in a communist society where everyone has equal access to the AI, that would be different. But we aren't. Like why are we even discussing this. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" isn't really valid here, because this isn't consumption. It's capital production generated from labor theft. Lmao. Can they be used responsibly? Yes. Are they? Largely, no! So what's the problem? Capitalism, sure! Can we deal with that problem? Nope! Does that mean we can't create regulative rules to protect laborers from having their labor stolen? No, we could definitely do something about that. It's called IP laws. Are IP laws perfect? No. Do IP laws do more for individuals than for large corporations? I would guess not. Does it offer them more protection than if they didn't exist at all? Yes. Could they be reworked? Probably.
  So... what's your point? Fuck trying to fix things, everyone just do whatever you want, it's the end of days, hopefully revolution comes on its own? Lol, whatever yo.
  Original point: some people (didn't say me) think it's immoral.
  Secondary point: IP laws aren't inherently immoral, they conceptually exist to protect laborers from having their labor exploited by people with more existing capital. They aren't even good in their current implementation, but believing in some form of IP law under capitalism is essentially a socialist policy.
  Third point: When most people think of AI, they think of corporate use. Literally no one gives a flying fuck about your personal models trained on your personal data, except for environmental activists. Who even then, generally begrudge corporations way more than the individual, but they are still technically right when speaking about the individual's personal impact as well. You can say they are ignorant and their position is nothing more than "capitalism is the problem", but boiling it down to that is reductive and makes you seem like an idiot trying to argue a black and white perspective. "We absolutely have no reason to be critical of AI because capitalism exists. Capitalism is the problem, and therefore, AI's impact on exacerbating the problem is completely irrelevant." Lmao. That's your position. That's the position you're trying to argue.
  Fourth point: It's more important to worry about where we are at than where we want to be. And look around. AI is a problem, and it needs regulation, and regulation of it includes protecting ACTUAL artists.
  
  Don't know what to tell you. If you don't see the issue with taking another person's labor and exploiting it for your own capital gain, then I don't know why you're even leftist. You sound more like an opportunist at that point.
  So capitalism, what I've been calling the problem this whole time?
  Cool.
  Corporations are the problem because they are exploiting and stealing other people's generated labor for capital gain.
  There it is!
  If someone else is doing that, it's still bad, because that's how corporations are started.
  Boy oh boy, I had no idea people profited from their posts on Lemmy. Clearly I'm missing out!
  You're right, capitalism is a problem. Abolishing capitalism is more important than fighting progress in AI development.
  Ding ding ding!
  But we aren't doing that. We aren't there.
  Some are. Why aren't you focused on helping those folks rather than complain about a symptom of the problem?
  So AI's current existence and commercial implementation is a net negative to society at large.
  Just the commercial use, and how its been done.
  How does that, in any way, relate to people making images and posting them to Lemmy? That some of them used a model that contained other peoples works? In what possible way does that relate to people posting their generated images to Lemmy?
  example thats just capitalism as the problem
  And yeah, I'm not generally that worried about people with their own LLMs or whatever. But they're not exactly free tools. Not everyone has equal access to them.
  You can download them and use them, there are a ton of resources out there, both with and without the materials you're concerned a out, freely available and shared.
  There is even a completely free AI horde available right here, with peoples donated resources. Thats about as accessible as it can be made.
  More stuff where capitalism is the problem
  So... what's your point? Fuck trying to fix things, everyone just do whatever you want, it's the end of days, hopefully revolution comes on its own?
  My point is to focus on the actual problem, not be distracted by the latest method of exploitation. There is always another method, and focusing on just what's in front let's more line up behind it.
  Original point: some people (didn't say me) think it's immoral.
  And it always comes to this immorality being based in this point:
  Secondary point: IP laws aren't inherently immoral, they conceptually exist to protect laborers from having their labor exploited by people with more existing capital.
  So.... Capitalism
  They aren't even good in their current implementation, but believing in some form of IP law under capitalism is essentially a socialist policy.
  ..... Wut?
  Third point: When most people think of AI, they think of corporate use.
  Yup.
  Literally no one gives a flying fuck about your personal models trained on your personal data
  Comments made across this post, as well as the mass down votes of AI communities, would absolutely disagree with you.
  Since thats the entire subject here, seems like misplaced anger dont you think?
  Fourth point: It's more important to worry about where we are at than where we want to be. And look around. AI is a problem, and it needs regulation, and regulation of it includes protecting ACTUAL artists.
  I agree that you can't ignore things happening right now, but AI has not decimated the workforce. I even gave examples of people who do contracted creative work who explicitly said AI got them work because the work needed to be redone.
  Ask any programmer how much they would trust an ai generated application. Let me know when you find one who says anything other than a wild laugh (that doesnt call themselves a vibe coder, pro tip, that is not a programmer).
  And then let me know when you can tell me how any of this relates to people posting images to Lemmy.
  
  I always thought the immoraility was not just about theft of labor. The environmental impact is where the real ethical problem comes in. Yes, a single person using their own LLM is a drop in the ocean of power usage, but if everyone used their own LLM, surely that would be even less efficient and more harmful than centralized data centres handling billions of queries (unless of course everyone is using sustainable energy sources).
  
  but if everyone used their own LLM, surely that would be even less efficient and more harmful than centralized data centres handling billions of queries (unless of course everyone is using sustainable energy sources).
  Not really.
  Those corporate LLMs are "everything and the kitchen sink", tuned LLMs are much more efficient.
  Now as I've said I'm not doing image generation, but I do run quite a few models at home for various purposes. I also have an excessive amount of hardware for my home lab, work, and for general stuff at home.
  And yet when I get my power bill with the comparison to my neighbors, I'm lower than average. And I dont have large PVs on the roof or anything, I just use efficient hardware and the rest of my home is specific energy efficient choices.
  I do have some pv supplementing, but that's for some led lights I run for various purposes, connected to solar battery banks. We are going to move, so its not worth it to start a full PV setup here.
  Now even without an efficient model, let's take a few more factors. Running a model at home its just responding to your query, no additional data or other processing required.
  The corpo stuff though, they are looking at your identity and data, evaluating the question related to advertising and what can be sold to you, or who your information can best be sold to. This sort of stuff is adding on a ton of unnecessary garbage thats burning up cycles for.... No reason related to the LLM or other tooling, purely as a profit center at the expense of your privacy.
  I pretty staunchly recommend against using corporate owned and run AI, it is detrimental to the environment. As are cars. As are large industrial efforts that sacrifice the environment (often ignoring regulations since the fines are lower than the profit they will make) for the sake of "line go up!"
  Capitalism is really bad for the environment.

426 comments