Empiricism

How to reinterpret emotions, pain, pleasure, etc.

Have you noticed that when you feel thirsty, drinking water instantly quenches your thirst. But, physiologically, it will take a while for that water to be absorbed into your bloodstream.

What's going on?

Making Sense with Sam Harris: #322 — Predicting Reality

Episode webpage: wakingup.libsyn.com/322-predic

Media file: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/waki

FYI, please contact Sam & ask him to talk about ecological as he's unusually quite about that subject

0
Empiricism

Only a battery made from non-mined & biodegradable material would be affordable (for the planet).

"Globally those in slavery, though small in absolute numbers (est. 40.2 million), contribute disproportionately to environmental destruction and carbon emissions. If modern slaves were a country, they would be the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, after China and the United States"

From forests to factories: How modern slavery deepens the crisis of climate change, Energy Research & Social Science doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.10.

0
Empiricism

Online folk lies & BS in general.

Some, not so smart folk, lie on social media (who knew) as they do offline. Even too themselves

Without going into detail why they do this, here is an effective psychological heuristic to mitigate online folk BS (context ). Give all online folk the benefit of our doubts. Take them at their word (face value). If their words are scientifically BS, so be it.

If their "wit" is actually unethical grandstanding, so be it.

1
Empiricism

Can we trust the media? The written and spoken language \ information on the internet, TV, Radio, or newspapers?

Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Some people have learned (understand) how to perform heart surgery and some people trust that some people understand how to perform heart surgery. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science). Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can (eventually) develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the temperature at 12 am every day of the week & calculating the average temperature for that week (at 12 am). In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they were personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they understood the right methods to use and the accuracy of the instruments. e.g., a calibrated thermometer). I described that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science (experiments) is the most accurate (reliable) method to collect real-world data.

However, there are people that are not interested in science and or don’t want other people to be informed of the science. On social media, many problems occur because there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the general audience (the population of people). So, even if a person was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), a biased agent may try to misinform people about the science - as often happens with climate science because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation (i.e., corruption & biased personal agendas in general). Or laypeople may misconstrue the science they read and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).

I'd advise sincere people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications). Be cautious of sciencey-sounding social media that does not reference scientific publications.

Science Journals peer review and publish scientists' research. Browse, search, and explore journals indexed in the Web of Science mjl.clarivate.com/home

Be cautious of science-sounding posts or toots on Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Especially in the context of ecological sustainability (e.g., “climate”, “ecology”), there are many social media posts from people that write science-sounding narratives. Many of these people will believe in their own sciencey-sounding rhetoric. The folk rhetoric tends to be caused by a mix of cherry-picked science (confirmation bias), personal beliefs, & biased agendas caused by a lifestyle preference (e.g., work and money-related personal biases that cause confirmation bias). Folk “science” or pseudoscience is a ratio of science journalism, wishful thinking, denial, thoughtlessness, virtue signaling, and more explicit forms of dishonesty (not including those that deny all science). Layperson bias or folk science is even more pronounced In the context of environmental sciences such as climate science. The environmental sciences' core message (consensus) is that many people, especially in technologically developed countries such as the USA (most greenhouse gases per capita), need to change their consumerism lifestyles (not a popular message). In other words, the general evidence infers that many people will have to change their lifestyles if we are to mitigate climate change (e.g., reduce greenhouse gases, etc.). On social media (i.e., the “mainstreams” social narratives) the signs are that the majority of people are, well, like the majority of countries, advocating an unsustainable lifestyle (their personal lifestyles).

How to develop a sustainable culture empiricalperspective.home.blog

The (published) evidence about climate change is the general scientific literature (the consensus). A random person's opinion or a post on social media is not a trusted source of information (they maybe trustworthy. But how do you know that? unless you know them personally). Not even a climatologist (a scientist who studies the climate) on social media should be a person's only source of trusted information about the climate. Scientists are people, and some people can be bought or adjust their views due to their own financial situation. The point is to be aware (informed) of the general scientific consensus on a subject such as climate change. And be aware that there are many people that don’t want that consensus to be generally known.

For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. ucsusa.org/resources/climate-d

There are a few, but popular (influential), celebrity scientists or talk show hosts on Youtube that disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. The fact that some people are believing in the opinions of individual scientists that are not even qualified in climatology just shows how people, in general, tend to believe what they want to believe. That's why many people "cherry" pick the science they like and disregard & or deny the science that they don't like (who likes the fact that human activities, for example, buying sports cars, fast fashion or the latest “must-have” technology, is damaging the planet's ecosystems, therefore, causing climate change?)

Besides science, the other source of information is generally social media (whilst science is also a social enterprise, however, fundamentally, science is the data). Social media such as news and political information. People's opinions, beliefs and views, etc., are a more or less accurate source of information. Social media news may be biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas. However, having a broad (e.g., not only technology-related) scientific education helps in all walks of life. It's never too late to learn more science. I'd recommend that a person starts with the philosophy of science (i.e., the epistemology of science) alongside learning the subjects of science. A rudimentary understanding of chemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed, is because they haven't developed a sufficient understanding of the relevant science subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed themselves or out to disinform them (e.g., generally industries if the prevailing science doesn't align with their profit agendas. In the context of the environmental science, it rarely does).

The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence. In other words, scientists don't report a novel new discovery as a fact - if that fact is only based on one research paper. Though laypeople often do. (And possibly some naive scientists). The general scientific consensus is the most reliable source of information. Of course, new discoveries are made (science updates), however, the point is that established science is and always will be based on the consensus. For example, Darwin and Wallace independently developed a hypothesis termed evolution. At that time (1800's) evolution was a novel discovery. Now, evolution is the general scientific consensus. It would be odd for a biologist to not accept the theory of evolution as all the evidence indicates that evolution is how life evolved (But, as mentioned, the odd scientists can be bought. i.e., charlatans (go rogue) or believe in their own misunderstandings.

We could also take the same cross reference of information sources approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy). People that only watch Fox News (USA) or only read the DailyMail (UK) are not the most informed people (to understate it). Recently, people began leaving because the new owner is explicitly using the social platform for his own business and (geo)political agenda (corporations tend to spread virtuous-sounding narratives so as to manage their social reputation). In this context, is more robust because it's connected to a less centralized network - so information can flow more freely as there isn't one corporation controlling what information is and is not regulated. Though the quality (reliability or usefulness) of information that is spread throughout the network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.

As for a person's personality. A sincere person that is diligently trying to find out the facts - is what good scientists, investigative journalists, etc., are. An insincere person that is trying to spread misinformation (lies \ fraud) – is less of a useful individual (though could be very rich. e.g., a fossil fuel executive or shareholder)

1
Empiricism

Introduction (of a science paper)

Rarely does a research finding in Cognitive Psychology become part of the common parlance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (DK) is an exception (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Named after the psychological scientists who discovered the phenomenon, the DK refers to the inverse relationship between one's actual aptitude and one's ability to accurately estimate said aptitude. In other words, while people generally exhibit some positive bias in assessing their own ability, this bias is heightened in those at the lower end of the distribution. It is thought that the second component of this “double curse” (Dunning et al., 2003) of inaccurate self-assessment, occurs due to a deficit in meta-cognition. This deficit in meta-cognition results in the failure to grasp what one knows and does not know.

Curtis S. Dunkel, Joseph Nedelec, Dimitri van der Linden,
Reevaluating the Dunning-Kruger effect: A response to and replication of Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020),
Intelligence,
Volume 96, 2023, 101717, ISSN 0160-2896,
doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.

1
Empiricism

Have you noticed that the people that overestimate their own intelligence in a subject often implicitly reveal, to the more informed, that their brand of pseudoscience is because they're missing the required level of humility?

That's why they don't ask more informed questions (lazy learners). They actually believe they're right most of the time (but, on social media, these folk rarely if ever reference scientific publications to back up their rhetoric - because they have not read the scientific publications. They read, at best, science journalism websites).

This online social behavior is actually the norm (average) within the context of laypeople's responses to posts where the scientific subjects of ecology (inc. Climate science) are the relevant context.

They really do believe, or at least promote (like a sales pitch) that buying stuff (products) is the main solution to mitigate change. Basically, because that is what they have been indoctrinated and want to believe in (nurtured).

Wanting to believe in something is the predictable way to most probably be incorrect. Denial followed by conformation bias is one of the most predictable forms of human responses (because humans are animals. And all animal's behavior has predictable patterns)

This is due to their unknown unknowns. A person's intelligence is generally related to experience For example, a person that has studied the scientific literature on has far more experience in that subject than a layperson (but an arrogant layperson can't handle that fact. Hence the self-denial).

You would not be surprised to hear how laypeople feign their level of knowledge of . They are fundamentally only fooling themselves.

Feigning intelligence on social media is relatively easier. Feigning knowledge is due to social status-seeking behaviors. The layperson (with a tone of arrogance. I.e., personality) feels like (emphasis on the emotional heuristic) they're being clever by generally making the narrative up as they go along, reading a little bit on the fly, for example, Wiki pages or social media forums, & very often really believing that the reason why they don't personally agree with the scientist is that the scientist is "stupid" (to use the layperson's words).

The Dunning-Kruger effect is real!

Imagining, after reading this, some arrogant laypeople will quickly read up the term on Wiki & self-proclaim themselves an expert. Arrogance (low humility) is a learning disability.

sciencedirect.com/search?qs=Du

0
Empiricism

The Empirical Perspective uses a scientific lens to critically evaluate common folk psychology.: NAP Satire News S01E01

Episode webpage: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sho

Media file: anchor.fm/s/d8369f60/podcast/p

0
Empiricism

Open access scientific publication.

Springer International Publishing. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/

To quote "The theory of by natural selection is the unifying paradigm of and indeed of all the life sciences – it explains and integrates a huge diversity of known findings and predicts an astonishing number of new ones (Alcock 2009; Coyne 2009). It has been famously suggested that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution (Dobzhansky 1973)

0
Empiricism

This poll is just for "fun" as people can lie, even too themselves, on questionnaires.

How much money would it take for you to lie on social media about the of change? (the currency is dollars [$] or equivalent)

Select the last option if "No amount of money" would make you "sell" your "soul" to the "devil"

19 people · Jun 16, 2023, 14:18
1+
Empiricism

Often, the use of a common word in has been incorporated into the layfolk lexicon, but has a different meaning.

E.g., when layfolk hear scientists say, for example, "theory", they perceive that a theory is just an idea (because that's how they use the word. E.g., "l have a theory"). Some scientists use the term theory when in fact the concept they're discussing is a hypothesis (I.e., not a sufficient amount of supporting evidence for it to be a theory)

The of !

0
Empiricism

They do like to talk ideas to death.

However, by natural selection had no foresight. Therefore, evolution can't be deterministic.

We certainly could use some fresh thinkers in the social media evolution \ academia scene.
But, Incorrect ideas tend to die out over a generational time frame (bad habits & incorrect ideas die out [in the scientific social scene])

The Dissenter: #787 Kennon Sheldon - Freely Determined; The New Psychology of the Self, and How to Live

Episode webpage: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sho

Media file: anchor.fm/s/822ba20/podcast/pl

0
Empiricism

To understand is to understand the self.

Evolution Talk: Introducing Evolution Talk!

Episode webpage: evolutiontalk.com

Media file: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/evol

0
Empiricism

Burning away their future.

I've spent over a decade thinking about, studying, and speaking out against human-caused ecological negligence. That negligence takes multitudes of forms. For example, local people burn biomass such as farmers burning piles of tree branches on their land or neighbors burning piles of plants in their gardens (colloquial terms such as "bonfires", "campfires", "BBQs", etc). For the relatively ignorant and small-minded, these localized air-polluting activities may not seem like a big deal. However, humans taking part in activities that emit air pollution causes both diseases (proximate) and will ultimately cause human societies to collapse (eventually) due to the effect of climate heating (caveat. If humans don't change their air polluting behaviors - and stop doing them).

During my time of environmental activism, I've had many different ideologies of my own. I used to be more naive and believed that people only need to be informed about how air pollution causes disease and climate change. However, to inform someone about the harm caused by, for example, inhaling smoke pollution, that someone must:

1. Have the background knowledge to understand what you're talking about (e.g., chemistry, biology).

2. Care.

Or

3. Care and trust what you are saying (trust the source of information. e.g., a Doctor or scientist can be a less or more trusted source of information).

Unfortunately, many people don't have the required background knowledge (e.g., scientifically illiterate) and trust the wrong sources of information such as the adverts from the businesses that are selling fuels and their associated politicians - also known as or phrasing it simply, lying so as to make a profit (fraud \ corruption)

However, when speaking out against air pollution I did use to think that the response I received from people was because, in general, humanity didn't care. However, I came to realize that that idea didn't make sense (in general).

To explain why that didn't make sense I will briefly describe what air pollution is and its effects on humans and the environment. (generally) Air pollution is caused by burning the element carbon. All living organisms (Plants, Animals, Fungi, Bacteria, Viruses, etc) are carbon-based lifeforms (including humans). When carbon is burnt that chemical activity emits gasses (e.g., carbon dioxide) and carbon particles (e.g., smoke) into the air (atmosphere, generally). Whilst there are other chemicals involved during the burning process, the majority of harm is caused when humans inhale carbon particles. Once a human has inhaled, for example, smoke or traffic pollution, the carbon particles travel into the lungs and from there into the bloodstream. In a dense form, carbon particles can be seen with the unaided eye, for example, smoke, when more dispersed carbon particles can't be seen (unless viewed through a microscope. Hence the term, microscopic particles).

Once in the body, carbon particles cause damage to humans. It's a long list of diseases, however, an example of a few: cancer, asthma, dementia (i.e., brain damage), and heart attacks, strokes (cardiovascular diseases in general).

For a general overview of the medical evidence of the effects of wood smoke inhalation see the Doctors and Scientists against woodsmoke pollution website dsawsp.org/

Finding scientific evidence about how deadly is air pollution isn't difficult, but, folk generally aren't that interested in that evidence (it's not a cute cat picture or sports cars). sciencedirect.com/search?qs=ai

So, as mentioned, I once thought that the reason why, for example, people didn't respond as expected when I stated the fact that, for example, air pollution causes childhood disease or climate change, was because humans, in general, didn't care.

However, people do of course care about their own health. Therefore, something else is going on. What is the underlying psychology that makes people thoughtlessly ignore the (not pleasant) information that would improve their own health outcomes? Nobody wants cancer, asthma, heart disease, or dementia.

Air pollution causes dementia pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=

Generally, what's going on is humans' fear, ignorance and denial are causing people to not learn how air pollution affects their health or the climate.

So, many people are thoughtless (ill-informed) regarding how the effects of how their own air-polluting activities are harming their own health and causing climate heating. Whilst there are many examples of this ecological thoughtless negligence, a trip to, for example, many campsites will prove my point. There you will see many adults choosing to sit around campfires or BBQs, oblivious to the fact what they are doing is harming themselves by inhaling wood smoke pollution (although, having fun whilst doing it).

Humans have been burning wood for hundreds of thousands of years (if not longer). Evidently, many humans enjoy doing it. They enjoy the fire, the smell, the experience. However, besides air pollution causing human disease, air pollution also damages the environment. From acid rain to climate change, humans are burning away their future.

A general solution qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

However, if humanity was choosing and focusing on the general solutions climate change would have been mitigated.

0
Empiricism

What are "tipping points"?

Climate tipping points are termed positive feedback loops or positive reinforcers.

Basically, Increasing the "X" variable increases the "Y" variable.

For example, (X) is increasing the risk of (Y) scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?a

Wildfires are fundamentally Carbon being burnt (Carbon Based lifeforms. e.g., plants and animals) which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere.

Human activities are burning carbon-based fuels ("Fossil" fuels & Biomass [e.g., wood fuel]), which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere, which in turn cause more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which in turn trap heat into the atmosphere - that's a positive reinforcer (although not "positive" within the colloquial [common] use of the word)

Wildfires are only one of many known positive climate heating reinforcers (there may also be some unknown reinforcers). Another climate reinforcer is how climate heating is causing the melting of permafrost. Permafrost is any ground that remains completely frozen—32°F (0°C) or colder—for at least two years straight. Permafrost covers large regions of the Earth. Areas closer to the North or South pole have regions of permafrost that have been frozen for hundreds of thousands of years. livescience.com/planet-earth/a

Permafrost soils also contain large quantities of organic carbon. As Earth’s climate warms, the permafrost is thawing. This means that the organic carbon will decompose and release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere - another positive climate heating reinforcer.

"State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes" Nature. (2019). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-087

Generally speaking, humans are not mitigating climate change, the effect of climate change is mitigating humans. However, whilst it's not impossible (it's an unknown unknown) that human greenhouse gas emitting activities could cause a climate heating runaway effect due to positive reinforcers, the general scientific literature (evidence), infers that the fewer greenhouse gases humans emit, the fewer ecological limiting factors will curtail humans.

Mitigating the existential threat of human-caused climate change is a precautionary approach. However, the data on greenhouse gas emissions clearly shows that industries are not taking the precautionary approach. ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-

Of course, industries supply the fuels, the machinery, etc, that enable people to take part in activities that burn fuels, etc. Many industries are evidently aiming to continue to burn fuels as are many consumers. Many businesses are aiming to continue to farm ruminants (e.g., sheep & cows that emit relatively high amounts of methane)

What is going to limit people from burning carbon-based fuels? (emitting greenhouse gases). The decisions of industries, politicians, and consumers? Well, that has not been the trend.

Generally, in wealthy countries, the effects of climate change, which are causing more localized severe weather such as heatwaves or flash floods, are causing politicians and industries to respond in ways that advocate activities that emit more greenhouse gases (more fossil fuels being burnt) into the atmosphere. For example, constructing more flood defenses. Repairing the damaged infrastructure caused by severe heatwaves such as repairing roads. This is another example of positive climate heating reinforcers. Generally, industries are leading the way (rather than focusing on nature-based solutions such as reforestation <<< that go against the farming industries' business models)

Whilst the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are a predictor of climate heating (there is a time lag), so is human behavioral psychology. In other words, habits (repetitive activities), politics, business decisions, lifestyles, and activities in general.

In many contexts, even when adults are informed that their fuel-burning activities are causing the climate to change in harmful ways, many adults don't even try to reduce their fuel-burning activities. When they're informed that eating meat is a leading cause of climate change, they generally ignore this information.

This blog post generally considers the psychology of those that are evidently not trying to reduce their fuel-burning activities (quite the opposite). empiricalperspective.home.blog

0
Empiricism

Greetings! I recently moved instance so here is a new

On Social media, I go under the pseudonym of “Empiricism”.

Empiricism aims (intention or agenda) are to promote (“toot”, “boost”, etc) accurate based information. The general theme of this account is related to promoting development. development requires mitigating ecological degradation therefore also (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

This account will not “sugar-coat” the challenges that humanity will have to overcome if climate change is to be mitigated. For example, the general trend (historic, present & future) is that humanity is not mitigating change (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions are rising), therefore, climate change is mitigating humanity (e.g., increases in the frequency & intensity of flooding, droughts, etc.)

Since no one can be informed of all the scientific literature, if a reader thinks that Empiricism makes a statement that is not backed up by the general scientific literature, please refer Empiricism to the relevant peer-reviewed science publication (e.g., paper or website)

Here is the link to the Empiricism digital signature empiricalperspective.home.blog

mitigation

0
Empiricism

What is the best for scientifically literal people who are also activists? People that are aware that the climate crisis is happening, location dependent, and care enough to be motivated to speak out against the business-as-usual craziness of societies.

A community of evidence-based thinkers (informed) that do not simply "cherry pick" whatever "science" aligns with their personal agendas - therefore do not habitually deny and are not ignorant about the science that they don't personally "like" (the idea of)

1+
Empiricism

Generally, many people want to sing kumbaya around a campfire whilst deluding themselves that the campfire's smoke emissions aren't toxic.

However, for those that are aware that the is now inevitable (it is already happening - depending on location), The Post Carbon Institutes Crazy Town podcast is a more sane analysis of all things climate-related

Crazy Town: Episode 75. How to Lose Friends and Demoralize People: The (sic!) of Near-Term resilience.org/stories/2023-05.

The photograph is of some crazy-looking clever guy called Einstein, who apparently said "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Of course, within the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, most people (of the world) aren't expecting different results - they're simply either being forced (e.g., gotta pay the rent) or choosing to take part in work and recreational activities that are emitting greenhouse gas emissions.

One thing is for sure, as usual is friggin crazy considering the consequences.

0
Empiricism

Greetings!

Who regulates the regulators? Who regulates the admin? The answer, generally, is no one! They can decide to delete your account, without a warning, at a whim (e.g. if they're in a bad mood, etc) If the admin suspends (deletes) your account, that means you can’t move your account to another instance (you have to start a new one). Account suspension prevents you from transferring the "followers" list. That list could be your friends, colleagues, lover, whistle-blower, you name it.

Effectively, there is zero accountability for Mastodon servers! So, when you read posts that say it doesn't matter what Mastodon server you join, that’s misinformation! Ideally, you’d know and trust the admin personally - that’s the most secure way to protect your data (but, not usually practical). Now if you complain, many admins will say, to paraphrase “You can always run your own server!”. Like they think everyone has the time and resources to do so (it’s just their way of avoiding the problems associated with the network)

My previous account was "suspended", without warning and with no written reason given, by the admin of climate justice social (the irony) climatejustice.social/@empiric . I just received an email that said “Account suspended. You can no longer use your account, and your profile and other data are no longer accessible. You can still login to request a backup of your data until the data is fully removed in about 30 days, but we will retain some basic data to prevent you from evading the suspension”

But, as mentioned. You can’t transfer your followers list (effectively, unless you have copied all the followers' addresses – the admin has deleted them!)

I assume the account deletion was because I'd made an accusation public (a private message from the admin), regarding the unfair conduct of ecoevo.social and climatejustice.social admin (they prefer to do their account warnings, etc, behind the scenes. i.e., no public accountability for their decisions). I posted publicly a link to a conversation I had with another person, in which I said that the OP was being prejudiced. In my public post, I linked to the conversation (made it public) that I was being warned of (by the admin). I asked people (the public on Mastodon) what do they think about the conversation? But, before I received any replies, the account was suspended (deleted).

I've asked this before on Mastodon without receiving any reasonable answer. How can anyone trust Mastodon if people can't backup up their own followers' list? There is no agency in the current system. A server could crash, the owner may just decide to close it or run out of money to finance it, etc.

So, this is a security flaw that should be addressed. The only reason I can think of why this security flaw isn’t been addressed (openly talked about with the seriousness it deserves) is that the server owners, don't believe it’s in their interest. However, evidently, it’s in the Mastodon community's interest to have a system in which they can easily back up the follower's list and have some democratic accountability from the admin. Fundamentally, it should not be up to the servers admin to delete a person's followers list (not even Twitter, Facebook, etc, would do that without any warning! Well, maybe they would, I haven’t used those networks in years)

What methods can a user of the network use to back up the "followers" list? (since the software developers seem to be against it) The last time I asked this, the reply I received, I assume from an admin was to quote "You can download a copy of your follows list". Evidently, intentionally tried to avoid the question I was asking because I stated the “followers” list.

So, can Mastodon be a better alternative to , etc? or is this just lip service? Because business as usual is the money controlling the general flow of information! (& that’s a form of corruption).

For the Fediverse to be decentralized, people will be able to connect to the network without any “middlemen” (that’s a given). So, can we have an adult discussion about what’s best for a social media network? Without it being monopolized and parasitized by the age-old corruption of social power (e.g. money). I doubt it, but…..

or

1

climate

45

psychology

31

sustainability

31

climatechange

20

science

19

degrowth

13
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy