volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
You're getting the logic backwards, though.
This isn't about what we MUST regulate, but about what a legislature CAN regulate.
This isn't a challenge to something unregulated, saying that it should be. This is the opposite, a challenge to a regulation that IS, saying it can't be.
@morax@satanodon.com
Well I hope you set your bar for politicians higher than that...
To clarify, this isn't some notion that at some point a hacker might break in to a computer and spy or anything like that.
The system is built on the idea of broadcasting content fairly openly. So it doesn't take any exceptional spycraft to just receive the broadcast.
I always try to raise awareness of the lack of real, reliable privacy controls on #Fediverse, just due to how the underlying system was designed.
You clearly know about this issue :) but so many users who aren't as tech savvy, and some who are, might assume the system is more secure than it really is.
Users need to know not to post anything on Fediverse that they wouldn't want public.
It seems to me very likely that the company is simply watching all that content going through, especially as it sounds like they have the resources to process it.
Seems to me they're not screwed at all, as they can either flat out lie or hedge with, "did not reply to our question by press time."
Which is technically true: even if you replied to their email, if your response didn't answer their question, then they can simply say you didn't answer their question.
Sadly, the only real solution to this problem is for the general public to move to better press outfits, which is an issue coming and going, the lack of better press outfits PLUS a public that kind of likes the rubbish.
I think SpaceX was always clear that they were providing the donation of service as a charitable move that wouldn't last forever, that they couldn't just keep losing money indefinitely.
So it's a bit strange to frame it as an ultimatum.
It's more of an offer to continue the service on a sustainable footing.
It's like saying McDonald's gave me an ultimatum that if I didn't pay them $5 they wouldn't give me a hamburger. I wouldn't call that an ultimatum.
I was going to ask in what ways Twitter was worse (I've never used the site much), so this answers my question.
So it's not so much that Twitter itself is worse, but that the user based changed, causing kind of a self-reinforcing, self-fulfilling prophesy of users leaving.
I'd add another option:
"Who knows? ignore"
Which is to say, I don't know, and it makes no sense to assume, ignore either way.
But that comes down to projecting your personal values on other users who likely have different values from your own.
It's great that you use the platform that way, but others use it in different ways, that give them more value.
Leave the control in the hands of the user, I'd say. Let the user decide whether they do or don't value that information.
That's not quite right.
Plenty of us used more than one platform, so it doesn't mean one less user for another, and really here Fediverse is the platform and Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc, are all just interfaces to the same platform.
It's true that Fediverse allows more diversity and creativity in those interfaces and moderation on instances, but I wouldn't say it's fundamentally that different from old platforms.
OF COURSE copyright is monopoly.
It's silly to say it's not a monopoly because I can sell something completely different.
If I can't print a book without your permission that describes the government enforced monopoly you have over that book.
The entire point of intellectual property laws is to establish and enforce monopolies to benefit creators, for better or worse.
@arstechnica @Corb_The_Lesser
re: #Libertarians and fedi misconceptions...
@Melpomene@erisly.social
But we don't need the parties' permission to improve the voting system. If the general public wanted the change, then it would undermine the parties' power, undercutting their relevance, and their protestations wouldn't matter that much.
The problem is that the general public doesn't understand the issue with the voting system.
We see this in response to the use of RCV in Alaska, where so many individuals felt that the outcome was faulty when it delivered results that were better. They didn't understand the system even after it was implemented.
Everything else, including the people controlling the system, hangs on that one issue.
I think they have such core differences that it's almost apples and oranges to compare them.
Fediverse is focused on instances, putting all the functionality there. BlueSky and Nostr are focused on users, to different extents, putting control in their hands.
It's hard to reconcile those very different philosophies.
Think of #Musk as a bored troll.
He likes to get a rise out of people because at least it's something interesting to watch, so his moves at #Twitter are proving highly effective.
He's toying with people, and they're giving him exactly the sorts of responses that he wants to elicit.
It's probably not healthy for him, and it's definitely not healthy for the society that descends into the negativity, but as with all trolls, the way to handle them is not to feed them (as the old internet adage went).
He basically says, If you're going to give me these buttons to push, I'm going to push them.
We should stop giving him the buttons, but obviously we won't.
There are so many counterexamples to your claim, ranging from pre-copyright business through profit from things that are public domain through business models that profit from the first sale regardless of what happens afterward.
Heck, you do realize people pay for Linux today, right? There are companies today profiting from Linux.
Who pays for it? Well, there are plenty of different business models built around free software.
Sure, it's nice to have a government granted monopoly, but there are ways to make money even without that favor.
re: #Libertarians and fedi misconceptions...
@Melpomene@erisly.social
You're missing my point:
Yes, the parties do do underhanded and even unfair things in their self-interests, absolutely.
BUT
Fundamentally other parties are disadvantaged by the math of our voting system.
The two parties didn't create vote splitting. That's created by a system where we have to choose one candidate from a list, and so we have to also guess how our neighbor is going to vote to try to avoid wasting the vote.
THAT's what keeps other parties down, the math involved, regardless of what the Democratic and Republican parties might think of it.
And the funny thing is that with the two party system representing mitigation for this deeper issue, their maintenance becomes as positive thing, in that sense.
@VPS_Reports@kolektiva.social
A rush to judgment.
Over and over we see people jumping on a story like this, proclaiming things about what happened, only to find out months later, after the investigation, that the original story was wrong.
Better if we wait for more information before making these pretty hefty calls about what happened.
Well, it really depends on how the instance wants to function. And this needs to be emphasized:
**Site blocking disempowers all users from making that blocking decision for themselves.**
If an instance wants to operate that way, with moderators acting as gatekeepers to protect the community, hopefully implementing judgment that the whole community jives with, then great.
But that tradeoff must be considered and grappled with.
I wouldn't want to be part of such an instance, but to each their own around here.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
