shadowsonawall @shadowsonawall@qoto.org

@Radical_EgoCom @mafeesh @RD4Anarchy @passenger I believe you severely underestimate the quantity of evil people in the world and the lengths they are willing to go to make themselves more than others. What size of a system are we talking about?

@MothWaves @Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @passenger what size of society are we talking about here?

@Radical_EgoCom @mafeesh @RD4Anarchy @passenger I understand what the ideal communist system looks like. It's glorious. It's also impossible in the face of evil/abusive people. Which exist, in large number, and need to be managed in any system.

@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @graphite @passenger we agree that there are evil people? How do you handle them in a system that scales past neighbors?

@foolishowl @RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger I think you misinterpret what I mean: I dislike all the systems we've spoken about. I'd love to hear an alternative. But the alternative has to work in the face of reality.

@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @passenger you're still thinking in egalitarian terms. A more direct example then. My buddies and I simply beat the hell out of anyone who isn't giving us what we want, which is more than we should have because "we deserve it" and other people are trash to be abused.

@Radical_EgoCom @graphite @passenger @RD4Anarchy oh? How would you deal with evil people without a state?

@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @passenger so, me and my charismatic buddies all manage to get ourselves into positions where we are responsible for distributing the goods of the society. We do it to our advantage, and to the advantage of people who support us. Now we have an upper class and a lower class (my friends, everybody else) and that just continues to spiral.

@graphite @Radical_EgoCom @passenger @RD4Anarchy which is literally impossible in the face of evil people who actively want to exploit other people.

@Radical_EgoCom @RD4Anarchy @passenger in an egalitarian situation, absolutely. It's also very easy to abuse which means, past a certain scale, it will always be abused. If a system can not function with evil people sprinkled throughout the system, it can't handle humanity.

@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger in some places that happened with capitalism, in some places it happened with communism, in some places it happened with theocracy. The issue isn't in the government type. It's with people who actively *want* to exploit other people for their own personal benefit.

@RD4Anarchy @Radical_EgoCom @passenger

The problem isn't that capitalism or communism are good or bad. Both function perfectly fine in small egalitarian situations. The problem is in scale. They scale differently but ultimately result in the same issue of wealth disparity.

Without an answer to "how does this work at scale with evil people throughout the system" the whole discussion is moot.

@marind The negative impact of this can not be overstated. It is the primary defense for why many people have a hard time trusting "scientists". And it's not possible to argue against because it's true: how do you know which paper is bullshit or not? Your (their) own opinion.

@cyrilpedia what I'm most interested in going forward is whether the medical community is able to thread the needle between "no, you are X therefore you are at higher risk of Y" by doing racially bifurcated studies and "no X can be better intrinsically better than any other X at anything" thinking.

@solarboi @mainframed767 I'm right there with you. Hate me some ads and the privacy invasion is so much worse than most people think (spend a few bucks buying ad space on several of the major social media platforms - those targeting options are both quite accurate and beyond invasive).

Unfortunately, cool technologies aren't going to offer a competitive path without being grounded in the brutal reality of economics. Right now that's the biggest thing the fediverse is lacking: large scale economic sense. It doesn't need to have that to be valuable, obviously, but before it can be a real alternative to <xyz> someone(s) are going to have to innovate in economics. Here's hoping!

@solarboi @mainframed767 that push makes a lot of sense from an advertiser's perspective. You pay less per impression and are able to target a significantly more diverse population with the insertion model. Imagine I've got $2k I want to spend on advertising. If I want to target multiple audiences with my money the sponsorship model forces me to go and find say 10 different creators and hope that any intersection in their audiences is super high value. Or, I can lean into analytics and target active viewers watching "anyone's" content (not quite that simple but way, way, way easier than trying to divide out my money manually). The latter is cheaper, provides more unique/higher quality individual coverage, and is way easier.

@solarboi @mainframed767 those "sponsored by" videos are a lot cheaper to buy than you might expect. They bring in about 2x what the video makes in views (about $0.02/view). If a creator could negotiate 1.5x the going rate, get a sponsorship for literally every video that they create, and handle all of "inflated views" complaints/chargebacks (google provides more of a service here than you might think), then yes - for those creators there is a viable alternative model.

@krupo @mainframed767 nebula.tv is another alternative slowly making headway. I don't know that any of them will really make a dent in youtube but they do apply pressure for it to keep improving which I consider a win.

@mainframed767 they could, I suppose. At that point though, the majority of the peertube codebase is the opposite of helpful. The technical lift for streaming content for authenticated users from a centralized server certainly isn't blocking any would be youtube competitor.

@mainframed767 federation means that the content gets copied to any/all interested servers. As soon as that happens the creator loses all control of the content. So far as I can tell, you have to have a centralized gatekeeper in order to enforce payment of any flavor.