Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@gannet@wandering.shop I got this one a while ago: https://www.lidl.nl/p/livarno-home-led-loeplamp/p100367002

Mechanically it's been great; well-balanced, stays almost exactly in the position you put it in, large range of movement, large magnifying area. Quite bright and good light quality (though very cold white light). Comes with a strong (screw, not spring) clamp.

The optics of the magnifier are alright, but not the best I've ever seen. Plastic lens, only some chromatic aberration around the edges - I've found it more than enough for my uses, but I'm sure that better options exist on that front.

(It seems to be a generic model; if you don't have a Lidl selling it, there will probably be other stores selling it under another brand but with the same design)

@retr0id I find that there usually is, but identifying them requires learning to recognize patterns of abusive behaviour (which a lot of moderators are actively unwilling to do)

Of course it ended up just being the usual rant about how control over moderation should rest with the users while conveniently not mentioning abuse considerations, not any actually interesting take about EEE or anything

Page reload seems to have fixed it 🙃

Oh hey, the bug is back where a different post gets boosted from the one I clicked 'boost' on

@KuJoe The report-based nature of something like Mastodon IMO obscures a really important thing for this litmus test to work: you generally don't have a full view of the situation as it develops.

In almost every moderation conflict, all the parties will be showing behaviour that would *superficially* violate a typical code of conduct; but crucially only one party typically started the conflict, and the others are then defending themselves. This is context that can be very difficult to infer in a report-based mechanism.

So when I'm talking about "moderation conflict", I am not referring to a single report (which may be by either the offender *or* the victim!), but rather the situation that led to the report in the first place, where it's often much clearer who the offender is, and that it isn't a case of silencing.

@KuJoe It's not really suited for automation because in practice there is always going to some amount of nuance, of course; in a case like brigading, it would of course not be the right choice to trust reports automatically.

But I still find it a very helpful litmus test, because of just how many people would functionally end up at "the offender, unless proven otherwise", and how easy those are to catch this way (assuming a well-intentioned moderator).

Even if "the person harmed" is not *always* the right choice, it should probably at least feature as your default choice in cases of uncertainty, and that's the opposite of the typical situation.