LibertyLizard

It could spread from other places where it exists. Syria would be the most likely source given its geographic proximity.

Alternatively, there are vaccines that use a semi-disabled live virus. While normally harmless, in war with lots of opportunities for transmission and many many people with weakened immune systems, it is possible for it to mutate back into the dangerous form of the virus. This was known to happen in the US in the last few years.

I’m not sure I agree. For comparison, here’s a recent article on Gaza from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-warns-israel-hamas-best-last-chance-end-gaza-war-2024-08-19/

Yes, it’s written from a western perspective, but there’s a clear attempt to include opposing perspectives including Hamas and ordinary Gazans. You see no such attempts from the Cradle’s reporting.

It’s true that all media is biased but that does not mean it’s equally biased. There is a big difference between the unavoidable bias of your own unconscious views on a topic and actively spreading misinformation. I am not very familiar with the cradle beyond these few articles but they appear to fit the latter category while Reuters and similar publications fit into the former.

Overall I think the assessment by the bias ranking seems fair, and the post removal even encouraged you to post another source on the same topic, so it’s not saying that this issue cannot be discussed. While I don’t necessarily agree with the mod’s action, it doesn’t seem like it’s an attempt to silence Palestinian voices either.

Here’s one: https://thecradle.co/articles/syrian-president-assures-russia-of-unwavering-support

I dunno, seems pretty biased to me. Even if it’s mostly quoting politicians, uncritically repeating their propaganda without any caveats is questionable at best.

First, this case involves S. mexicana, not S. nigra. Second, the issue was they included the leaves and branches which are known to be toxic. We wouldn’t call cherries poisonous but the wilted leaves can be very dangerous to consume.

The black and blue species of elderberry are widely eaten. I’m unaware of any well-documented cases of poisoning by eating any quantity of ripe berries. The evidence suggests this is a myth. Sam Thayer documents the evidence in one of his books, I’ll maybe post some excerpts if people are curious. He’s a forager who writes very detailed accounts of his own experiences but also does extensive research to unravel a lot of myths about edible wild plants.

And, as I said, I’ve personally eaten reasonable quantities (way more than a few, maybe around 1 cup) raw, ripe berries with no ill effects. If there is any toxic component in the berries, it must be so insignificant as to require a very high dose to cause any noticeable effects.

Not sure if you mean the plant itself but the berries are certainly edible. I’ve eaten many myself. I believe the leaves and other parts can be poisonous but that’s not a problem.

Edit: some online sources are claiming the edibility varies by species. I’ve eaten small quantities many times and moderate amounts (several handfuls) a few times, mostly of Sambucus mexicana, which is a different species than the one pictured which is either S. nigra or canadensis. But I believe those both are edible as well.

Not a bad idea. I lack the skills myself but if anyone is interested in such a thing, let me know. I’d be happy to support in any way I can.

Yes, the complexity is certainly one of the downsides to what I’m proposing, which is one reason why I was curious if people thought the complexity would be manageable. Sounds like you think not?

Just to clarify, my thought is to leave this up to users/admins to choose their own algorithm, which would transparently describe how things are weighted. For me, I would like to weigh factual information most highly, then kindness, with raw popularity at the bottom. But others might feel differently, especially if there were even more types of reactions than the three main categories I described.

For new users or those who don’t understand the system, it would be fine to have a default sort, maybe configurable by your instance. It could be as simple as just adding up the positive and negative votes, which would make it identical to the current system, or we could just guess at some different weights. Let me people try them out—not everyone will engage but I hope enough would to help iron out the wrinkles and see what works best.

Any locals care to chime in on this? I am skeptical for a few reasons. It’s always been legal to enforce the law regarding open fires, littering, drug use, etc. And it’s always been allowed to enforce anti-camping ordinances when shelter is available. My understanding is that this ruling only changes the situation when no shelter is available. It’s not about enforcing the rules, it’s about sweeping the problem into someone else’s neighborhood when you aren’t providing a real solution. Those neighborhoods will of course be the ones with the least political capital—the poor, racialized, etc.

Breed claims this is about people who refuse to accept help. But is this true? What help are they providing and why was it not sufficient prior to the SC ruling? I don’t live in SF so I’d love if someone more informed can either confirm or deny my suspicions here.

The reason I included the negative reactions is to help distinguish between unpopular but constructive content, which I believe is very valuable in disrupting the echo-chamber effect, and content that is actually just bad, rude, insulting etc. and not contributing to anything.

Often, when there are guidelines on how to vote in platforms or communities they instruct people not to downvote for mere disagreement but people do it anyway. So by separating the disagree downvote from the “this is just objectively bad” vote, I think this can help curate a more positive environment. The goal is that if a comment or post is getting more than a few of those reactions, it should be hidden or maybe even flagged for moderation. But posts that are merely unpopular can stay as long as they are factual and polite.

That’s really not practical and besides, protest has to be somewhat disruptive to work. Ideally you target that disruption as much as you can towards the group whose behavior you want to change but some level of disruption for ordinary people is inevitable and often desirable.

There is a lot of research that supports the idea that disruptive protests are effective in building support for an issue, especially if it’s something most people support after learning about it but it’s not top of mind for them otherwise. Some classic examples are racial and climate justice movements. Even if they get annoyed by the protesters themselves, it often increases support for moderate factions within the same coalition by sparking the conversation. This is especially true id the state responds violently which can help to build sympathy for the movement. Creating problems for the state to entice them into violent repression can sometimes be a part of an overall strategy though obviously this can be more physically risky for activists and organizers.

Interesting that you say that, because I was imagining that each type of vote could be represented by a different emoji. I think people would get it if we picked the right ones. But care would be needed to avoid those that could have multiple meanings.

Maybe something like this:

Agree - 👍

Disagree - 👎

Friendly/kind (not sure the best word) - 🫂

Hostile/rude - 🤬

Factual or insightful -💡

Incorrect - ❌

You could add others but those seem like the most common and useful signals I would want to send while voting.

Another idea would be to just open it up and let people use any emoji to react. Some platforms already do this but it can get more confusing in terms of how to interpret and incorporate all of that information into ranking algorithms.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Downvotes with no obvious reason always make me curious. Often they’re directed at an important but unpopular truth.