🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

FYI #QOTO has temporarily silenced mastodon.social until they get their spam attack under control at which point the silence will be removed.

@post At no point did they say or suggest that masks **probably** had an effectiveness close to 0.. in fact the report clearly states the opposite, that it cant draw any probable conclusions fromt he current data.

@realcaseyrollins

No not always. The high-heels was not at all common for men to wear until the king decided to wear them (cross-dressing) at which point other men began adopting it as a fashion norm, but only after.

We also have countless famous figures who cross-dressed throughout history.

@threalist

Sure they did.. cross-dressing specifically to wear styles of the opposite gender was **also** very common and not a modern invention by any means.

Sooo just a reminder:

Dresses were the norm for boys in 100+ years ago, and the color pink was a color for boys as well.

Oh yea and in the 1700s it was normal fashion for men to wear high heels.

But hey, lets make up whatever fake history we want to make gender norms sound like they have always been the same and that "cross dressing" and "drag" are somehow new inventions.

#lgbt #lgbtq

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

Agreed, Ill let you know the day Eugene shows even an inkling of admitting his mistakes and correcting them...

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

Back before QOTO diverged too far from mastodon to be feasable most of our fixes were offered as PR to mastodon... surprise surprise Eugene usually rejected them for ideological reasons and here we are.

This isnt a case of "well its open-source"... no you have a highly opinionated guy running the scene who has made highly questionable and destructive decisions on various occasions and who has stifled good contributions to the codebase at every turn (and often gets called out)... So no the fault lies with Eugene here right fromt he getgo.

@post @feld @chiasm

You didnt erode a damn thing.. you posted a study that said "We need more studies and there is no solid evidence to draw a conclusion".. .nothing more nothing less..

The only thing you eroded is peoples respect for you, if they had any to begin with with this nonsense.

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

Our code is public yes.

We have been in development and separate from mastodon for many years now, hard to keep track of all of our features off hand. Most of what we have is in the form of python scripts and dont ship with the server itself (that said I dont think me or the other mods would mind posting them if someone wants them). They are mostly designed to find advertisers, even if they dont post, by looking for common red-flags in their profiles then listing them to us for review.

There are some things at the server level too, for example we can review remote timelines (timelines of other instances) without needing an account there,a nd use that to help us moderate inter-instance federation, we also added captcha which can can use various indicators to decide if it presents itself or not, and a few other tools.

@supernovae@universeodon.com @Gargron

We do have some custom moderation tools yes.

@supernovae@universeodon.com

We dont run mastodon we run a fork that is heavily modified and our version is not a reflection of what features we pulled in from mastodon anymore.

@Gargron

@Gargron You could always try actually developing good moderation tools into mastodon.

@post

So I should look at the studies the review links, but the reviews conclusions itself should be ignored...

Man not once have i spoken to you and you've added something of value to a conversations, not once.

@feld @chiasm

@post @feld @chiasm

Except for the parts that disagree with you, and except for literally the entire conclusion part of the report... none of that is superior... but yea the parts taht agree with you, totally superior I guess.

@post

You are the one who touted this study as superior to all others because its a concrain review... but only the parts you like, none of the parts that **explicitly** disagree with you... ok

@feld @chiasm

@post @feld @chiasm

So wqe agree that the evidence to support a conclusion is very weak?

@post

thats some impressive cherry picking... So we shoudl ignore the author of this highly superior study completely when they tell us the poor quality of studies, and instread should trust you that the studies are in fact very well done and complete... but only the studies that aghree with you of course, not all those other studies that disagree.

Oh and also just look at the parts that you highlighted and ignore the parts you dont highlight where it says things like "low‐certainty evidence".

@chiasm @feld

@feld

I am 100% with you there. But he is a member of the server I admin and has been "educated" countless times and keeps with this nonsense. So good luck.

@chiasm @post

@chiasm @post @feld

Yup, the study literally said we dont have good studies ont he effectiveness of facemasks and we need them...

Somehow this dude read "Face masks have 0% effective rate and this review is more credible than all the others!"...

@post @feld

I mean it literally says so int he very first sentance of the conclusion and then repeated multiple times...