The Deep Fake Detector probably can’t keep up anymore with the recent AI advances.

It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.

This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.

As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a “removal” would be required.

What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?

You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start “removing” people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.

Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the “removal” is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.

You bring up “fascist”, at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.

What does nuking a potato mean? Unfamiliar with the slang.

As an individual you can’t be expected to do that and there are many good reasons not to do it, as you could suffer from consequences. As part of a society, all of your actions do shape the social environment around you in small ways. But when the interests of you as an individual with those actions of society clash, you do bear the responsibility of what happens in that society. In my opinion this would apply even to those who have worked against unethical actions, because taken for a bigger scope at a nationwide level, it wouldn’t be feasible to exclude those from reparations either way. Even if the “good” would get compensated with a lower tax, they will economically feel it either way, as the “bad” around them are still sanctioned. And then the ethical dilemma is what could be considered “good” or “bad” at all.

Now taken this generalized context back to marginalized groups, if everyone would be obligated to be an activist, it would punish those unable to cope with the additional stressors activism could entail. Then, the question is who is actually marginalized and who is not, the rich 1% is a minority, but definitely not in “need”. There are people labeling themselves as things which they are not. (Some “leftist queer” folk are more rightwing in their deeds, than actual conservatives.) I also believe those who fight for the rights of those that person itself doesn’t belong to, adds nuances, you can quite often see ideological shifts in people depending on their income. Which gives the question on whether a truly fair solution between groups is attainable, and probably an unsolvable optimization problem, so compromises must happen.

Every policy you go for, will eventually have some people discriminated against in some ways or even actively harm them. No matter what your stance on HRT and medical transition is, there will be some people who should not have done it in the first place, or should have to alleviate their gender dissonance. And whatever line you draw in the sand, there will be something wrong with it. Expecting everybody to strictly enforce some kind of policy by activism, is an ethical burden we can’t place on an individual, but which we involunatarily bear by its consequence.

This should be illegal. As a person who was once false flagged manually by network attribution. Of course the anti troll flagging network was itself socially destroyed by time and is frequently cause of scandals while nobody cares for me.

Add certain language patterns and political stances and you have an excellent oppressive tool.

The behavior the study is referring to, is actually result of reddit’s algorithms and human psychology. Often the contrarian view of whatever the post is about will automatically float to the top, no matter the topic, opinionated, factual or debunking, nature.

These things are ableist. We are reaching the point where AI can solve these much more reliably than a human. As a result the difficulty has to rise and will exclude more and more people which might have problems with “basic” tasks from a neurotypical perspective. Not to speak sometimes there might be multiple solutions depending on language and cultural interpretations.

Russian telegram channels reported without proof the death may be attributed to the way they conduct a documentation.

They group up with multiple other people, including soldiers, and stay as a group continuously. This is to control that nothing gets shown which should not be visible and have a tight control.

Apart from the lacking proof I am sceptical this would be required as this news agency is under full Kremlin control, but rational reasoning isn’t required for this authoritarian government.