I’m getting the impression from Lemmy that there’s an overrepresentation of the particular demographic of comfortable middle-aged bookish software engineers who live in the US or Canada.
What word would you prefer to someone who tells you to your face that they intend to “put you up against the wall” and then asks if you “know what that means, you fucking lib”?
I mean, I’m a demsoc, and of the last 20 death threats I have received in my life, 15 came from people who identify as Communist-Leninist. PLEASE give me a better word for them.
Funny because of the dozens, if not hundreds, of death threats I’ve gotten, practically all of them come from zionists, NAFOs, keyboard nazis or the occasional trumpeteer.
Full disclosure, as a leftist I avoid those far-right areas like the plague. I’m quite certain I would receive more far-right death threats if I did not.
What word would you prefer to someone who tells you to your face that they intend to “put you up against the wall” and then asks if you “know what that means, you fucking lib”?
And I bet you’re fun at parties. Please oh great psychic, tell me more about myself?
And actually, I do know the difference between demsoc and socdem. The formal definition for Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.” That we are constantly painted as “filthy liberal” for wanting to respect the will of the majority is a disappointing and disgusting lie. And the ONLY people who accuse socdems of being fake leftists? TANKIES. Who are not, by any meaningful definition, more left than those of us with a soul.
The only way I’m not a leftist is if your version of leftism says “fuck people, freedom, or democracy”. In **your ** version of leftism, are you ok with being the 1% ruling by force against 99% who hate you? Think very carefully before replying to that.
Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”
That’s what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.
Who are not, by any meaningful definition, more left than those of us with a soul.
Speaking of succdems look how even in their mind palace they’re already dehumanizing anyone to the left of them. This helps when they cooperate with and enable fascist parties like they do every time in history. “Tankies don’t have a soul and they’re going to kill you first so it’s okay to let the nazis kill them actually” I’m a REAL leftist :D
Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.”
That’s what a demsoc is. Social democrats support capitalism with social programs.
You should tell Webster they’re wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.
By their definitions, a Socdem’s insistence on using democracy at all costs is what differentiates between them and demsocs.
By why is it so important for you to insist everyone use your nonstandard definition of the terms? Also, your calling us “succdems” tells me exactly everything I need to know about your permission. If I’m not willing to murder people, I’m less than human to you enough to be given a silly nickname.
“Tankies don’t have a soul and they’re going to kill you first so it’s okay to let the nazis kill them actually” I’m a REAL leftist :D
At this moment, you’re on the wrong side of the “First they came for” poem because you’re the one rejecting the Left.
You should tell Webster they’re wrong. And Wikipedia. And Brittanica.
Not to call the editors of those fine resources for elementary school aged children stupid or anything, but the adjective-noun pairs “social democrat” and “democratic socialist” literally imply within the terms themselves what these things are. A democratic socialist is a socialist who uses democratic means. It’s on the tin.
At this moment, you’re on the wrong side of the “First they came for” poem because you’re the one rejecting the Left.
Can you show us a time this happened? Genuinely, people shouldn’t throw around death threats to anyone but war criminals billionaires nazis transphobes and cops, so if thats happening to you just because you’re an average liberal I don’t support that
or I’ll have to assume you were on some cracker shit and actively supporting or being one of the aforementioned groups, in which case, lmao haha
Social democracy, noun a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
So, uh, capitalist, according to Webster. It is very funny to say “I totally know the difference between SocDem and DemSoc”, and then go on to not know.
However, I’ll write something up here. I’m from Denmark, a SocDem country. The current prime minister is Mette Frederiksen of the Social Democrat party. We are almost at SocDem as you can get.
This Social Democracy of Denmark formed around the time of the Soviet Union starting to get more influential, as the capitalists of Denmark found themselves needing to provide concessions to the working population, since an example of better worker rights was right next door. This was the birth of Social Democracy in Denmark. It expanded to have free healthcare, education, and a pretty strong social safety net. Now these things are of course nice for the people living in Denmark, however the second that the USSR fell, austerity started happening. I cannot remember a time in the last 20 years where the government wasn’t trying to “save money”. Now our healthcare system is crippled, education is getting defunded, and social safety is the same.
The only reason that the capitalist class of Denmark gave the concessions they did, was because the Soviet Union was next door. This is the reality. The capitalists will never give you anything, unless their security is threatened. To be a Social Democrat, and rejecting revolution as a concept, is to just play into what capitalists want. Social Democracy is just another way to preserve capitalism. It’s not a solution, it’s a band-aid for a bullet wound - might stop the bleeding for a bit, but it sure as hell will get infected if it’s not treated properly. At best it’s harm reduction, at worst it’s a detriment to the rights of the working class.
I’m not even getting into the exploitation necessary to uphold Social Democracy, and some of the other more icky elements of the ideology. I’m just giving you an example of what has happened to every single Social Democracy currently. I understand that it’s nice to think about, but I promise you that it’s not the solution to the problem.
The DemSocs at least have a problem with capitalism, however while their insistence on pacifism, and reform sounds very nice, it has literally not worked once in history. Not a single time. One of the only time it got close was with Allende in Chile, and the US fucking killed him, because you cannot fight empire with just words. I’m sorry, but that is the truth. You need to be able to fight counter-revolution, sabotage, sanctions, threats, war, espionage, etc. You cannot do this within the system that is funding all those things. You have to move away from capitalism entirely, suddenly, and forcefully, otherwise you will be crushed.
Call me a tankie if you want, I don’t care. But if you are going to call me this, at least tell me why. Tell me what part of what I just wrote is wrong.
Sorry, cited the wrong dictionary I guess. www.dictionary.com/browse/social democrats . I’m surprised at Webster disagreeing with everyone else. I figured every dictionary would agree. The dictionaries using my definition are:
So I’ve got mud on my face, citing the only source that disagrees with me.
But fine. If it really matters that much to a couple people, then there’s not a term for what I am. I’m not a DemSoc because I don’t realistically think we will achieve complete socialism in my lifetime and I think that’s OK in the short term as long as we improve things, and actually preferable until people actually want socialism. That doesn’t make me a capitalist.
Also you’re going off mainstream liberal dictionaries and not how the left as a cluster of organized movements has come to definitions for its working purposes. So you’re coming at it from an outside (liberal) perspective which reads as an indicator you’re a liberal.
The problem with dictionaries is that they describe the popular use of a word, not necessarily the academically correct one. I only used the dictionary because it was honestly too easy to do a gotcha there.
A great example of dictionaries being “wrong” is the word “factoid”. A factoid originally is a popular piece of information that is actually incorrect or false - a popular lie. Now the word factoid is in many dictionaries described as being “an insignificant or trivial fact”, which is like, the exact opposite of the original meaning of the word. I’m 100% sure that in certain universities, I would be marked down for using “factoid” as “fun fact”, even though dictionaries seem to think this is fine.
The original meaning of the word Social Democrat was a heavily discussed topic even in the beginning of the Soviet Union. After WW2, it was even popular within Socialist/Communist circles to call SocDems, “Social Fascists”, as the enabling of the SocDems in Germany (SPD) helped the Nazis attain power, since they positioned themselves against the rest of the “left”. SocDems will always rather align themselves with capital, rather than the “actual left”, because the entire ideology reinforces capitalism. The reason people are mad at you here, is that SocDems have historically, every single time, helped the fascists rather than the socialists when push comes to shove. It’s the reason for the quote “Social Democracy is the moderate wing of fascism”. Now you can disagree with that last part, but this is history. Schumacher did betray the socialists. And he always would have, because Social Democracy is a capitalist ideology, which is why Marxists refuse to let them call themselves socialists. You cannot believe in capitalism, and socialism at the same time. They are opposites.
DemSocs on the other hand, are Reformist Socialists. They are who the dictionaries should actually refer to. They are the people who believe that a peaceful reformist transition from capitalism to socialism is the way to go, even though it has never worked. They believe that if you just vote hard enough, the capitalists will just let the poor take away their power. I don’t actively dislike them, but I think it is very very naive.
Marxists are usually Revolutionary Socialists, who believe in revolution as a way to make change. This has worked several times in history, and there are several countries in the world right now that still exist after a socialist revolution, and are doing as well as you can considering that the entire western world is sanctioning them.
Marx hated Social Democrats btw. When one of the founding figures of the ideology does not think that a Social Democrat is a socialist, then I dunno what to tell you.
In short, the dictionaries are wrong. In an academic setting those definitions would be rejected instantly. People just do not understand what these ideologies are, so they use the words the wrong way. These words get used the wrong way enough, and the dictionaries will change to fit, as that is what dictionaries do. But the original meaning, that is part of the books that many of us read about these subjects, do not match with the dictionaries. If you referred to dictionary definition in a Political Science class, you would not pass, I assure you.
I appreciate the kind words, thank you. Might as well use my experience with Social Democracy for something, because it always bothers me when people think it’s the solution.
God, you’re such a big dumb idiot of a lib. That’s the definition of a democratic socialist, not a social democrat - you can tell by the way one of the groups are call socialists and the others are called democrats. Not only did you mix up your definitions, but you never actually managed to define democratic socialist - do you really know what the difference is if you can’t even remember to talk about one of them? The answer, scrolling down your post history to where you called yourself a socdem, is no, you think they’re the exact same thing, because you don’t even have a surface level understanding of leftism. It only takes 5 minutes in leftist spaces to discover that anarchists, socialists, and communists of all flavour hate socdems for exactly your “no really, somehow we’ll manage to vote socialism in this time” attitude, but you’ve never spent a single minute in them, because you’re not a leftist.
My version of leftism is called Marxism and is based in historical reality and current material conditions. Your version is fantastical utopianism that’s convinced the elite are just going to give up the reigns any day now.
Death threats are an inappropriate and disproportiate response but have you considered that it is because you’re more irritating to the left than you are to the right? Especially given how right wingers historically are massively more violent?
I’m a demsoc. I want to respect Communism more, but I never get death threats from liberals and do occasionally get death threats from Tankies.
It sucks because I feel they’d make a good ally to compromise with if they weren’t hoping to have me executed for not supporting an authoritarian seizure of power.
Well, i can’t speak to your experience but I’m a commie who doesn’t dig a forced central planning authority. Or death threats even!
Well that’s a breath of fresh air. That’s very different from what I’ve seen. I do have to point out what I said elsewhere, that I feel Communists have a responsibility to speak against violent communism, the same way “good cops” can only be good if they speak out against bad cops. (I know how most Communists feel about police, but at least I hope you can appreciate the intent of the parallel)
For my part i get called a “traitor” and such by libs often, simply for criticizing the DNC et al.
I think using the word “traitor” in a situation like that is terrible. I do take it personally if someone treats the DNC as “just as bad as Trump” after he managed to cause an unprecedented amount of devastation between his immigration policies, “pay me” COVID handling, and open hatred of marginalized groups and “great people on both sides” support for groups like the KKK… But as much as I am disappointed when people put even a moderate like Biden in the same boat as him, I wouldn’t use the word “traitor”.
But your point stands, no death threats.
I would love if I met more Communists who are more willing to have constructive conversation with the other Leftist groups, instead of the ones that group all of us in a wide-net neoliberal basket that includes everyone from Bernie Sanders to Adolf Hitler. So, thank you :)
Do you ever think maybe it’s weird that you get many death threats? I think have ever had one in my life and I’ve conversed with many many mentally… unhealthy people
I’m a Social Democrat, who used to be a Democratic Socialist. The Right sees me as a Communist and McCarthyism kicks in. Did you hear about the “Physical Removal” movement? A meme-like movement about giving the Left helicopter rides to the middle of the ocean. I lived in a farm town where 40% of the voters were overcompensating for the Right not being able to win a rural area by being very outspoken anti-left.
And then, the Left. When I considered myself to be a demsoc, I tried to hang out in LSC on reddit. Not sure if you know it, but they eventually got banned for all the death threats coming out of there. There is an attitude around some percent of Communists that non-Communist lives don’t matter. They might be a minority, but they’re outspoken.
That was what got me to realize the flaw in being a demsoc, and I shifted laterally (NOT to the Right as several people like to pretend) to Social Democrat. Then I got more death threats because Communists have a hard-on of insisting Socdems are literally the same category as fascists.
I DO think it’s weird that I’ve gotten and get death threats over my views, and I understand why so many people my age have given up having any views at all and just become “I just vote a party and go about my day” folks that are part of the problem.
By the silent downvote I take it that you think getting so many death threats is normal and not possibly linked to being an extremely weird person who argues with perhaps even weirder people
Bingo Im bisexual and based on history alone there is no version of socialism that has not been horrible for me except the GDR for a few years at the very end of 1985-92.
You have my sympathy. Even when I was actively involved with pro-LGBTQ movements, there were people marching for rights that that didn’t respect bisexuals.
Oh fuck off lol. The biggest instance literally preemptively removedd from everyone left of Bernie Sanders. Go back to reddit if you’re afraid of getting called out for being politically illiterate.
I’m guessing it dropped the F and rearranged the rest into the R slur. I can’t think of any other word with most of those letters, and it is a word otuside of the slur context, a verb meaning “to slow down”
Okay so I followed the first part, you want Russians dead and all that, it’s the thing rn. But you realize saying “launch the nukes” is exactly the same thing as “death to America” but with more steps, right?
What can I say, I want to actually do the job I trained for sometimes. Besides, the way the qoeld is going makes me less and less hesitant to actually flip the toggle switch when the order comes. Maybe that’s the point.
I know they’re Great Power Conflict adversaries, and I know my job is to put warheads on foreheads when directed. Everything else is just ammo for the IC community, SW, SO and MISO. Hooyah America.
First, you tell us walking is better for the environment and then you tell us that it won't be possible because some stupid numbers law thing? What do you expect us to walk on? Our own fucking meaty feet?! They go all ouchie after a time!
"The Holodomor was caused by selfish kulak farmers and the real victims were the Russian people" is the kind of thing I'd write to mock tankies, and then delete because I thought it was too on the nose. Jesus Christ.
I admit, I was distracted when I wrote that comment and realized my mistake shortly after. Lemmy gave me a spinning wheel when I tried to delete it and, well, here it stays as a result.
I’m late to comment, so I may be typing into the void.
I understand the admin’s decision to limit their exposure to legal risk. I had similar experiences as a small business owner and you would be surprised how quickly most people’s idealism is tempered by the risk of potential legal action. It’s totally possible to believe strongly in the legality of something and its benefit to society (in this case piracy) and still choose to limit your own legal exposure. As far as I know, none of us paid to be here, so the polite thing to do is say “thank you for hosting us” and move on if it’s not your thing (or just make a second account).
I believe our current copyright/intellectual property scheme is broken at best, and designed to fuck us out of every bit of culture that has ever existed, at worst. Piracy exists because the system is broken and the industry is entrenched and refuses to adapt to customer demands. It screws music fans, artists, and probably the individual low-level employees of many music industry companies and organizations.
Greed … it’s the cause of all these issues. Greed on the part of the corporations and industries that run these services and own all this content.
If they just tempered their greed, lowered their costs, paid themselves less, shared profits with those who actually deserve it and made all of it more affordable and even cheap for customers … no one would think of piracy and we would all just feel comfortable paying for services and content knowing that the money we did spend was being shared fairly.
Instead when we all know that the profits they make just go towards corporate greed, giving away money to shareholders who do nothing and give little to no money to the actual content creators while artificially inflating costs on all of us just to squeeze more out of everyone … those of us at the bottom really don’t mind pirating content because we know that the only people we are stealing from are the greedy idiots that instead feel that it’s normal for them to steal from us.
Everyone pirates everyone else … it’s a matter of economics … either we pirate them … or they pirate us. If we all live with an understanding, we learn to live in balance without pirating one another.
Right now the they’re tilting the balance against us … which is why so many feel obligated to raise the Jolly Roger once again.
Given lemmy.world’s uptime vs how well pirates keep torrent seeds up, I’d be surprised if anyone in that community actually uses lemmy.world as a primary instance lmao
They don’t. The guy who pushed for it was a troll who made an account specifically to make a big splash and cause issues for the instance and its admins. Wouldn’t be suprised if bots were involved to upvote the concern troll thread.
The community in question didn’t even have anything illegal on it. The troll argued “well they discussed pirating as a thing that exists”. That’s great, do you push for the shutting down of every “true crime” community too? Serial killing is pretty darn illegal but talking about it sure isn’t.
So if your question is in good faith let’s break it down a little.
Capitalism is a economic system. It may have some liberal or conservative slant inherently, but in theory there isn’t anything implicit.
A liberal or conservative economic policy would be how you manage that economic system. Liberal economic policy should tend to favor rules and regulations to account for the flaws of unchecked capitalism. Conservative policy tends towards less regulation, relying on the market system to set prices for goods and services.
Personally, I’m liberal because the ultimate goal for any capitalist is a monopoly. Often in that situation, you get an unequal power dynamic that allows a company to stay ahead of competition or bully them out of the market, preventing the market from setting prices. Additionally liberal policy tries to regulate negative externalities, such as companies dumping chemicals in a river (such as when the Ohio river caught on fire leading to the creation of the EPA). Frankly, these are real problems inherent in capitalism that conservative policy doesn’t address because it makes the rich richer. It’s pretty disingenuous to argue that liberal policy is there to benefit the rich.
Anyway, that’s a super basic breakdown. None of that is say there isn’t corruption from the rich and greedy in politics. Frankly, money equating to political influence is crazy and has allowed the weathly to completely shape world policy. If you want change, look to rank choice voting systems or other ways to move more choice and power back to voters.
I appreciate your effort, but my comment probably wasn’t what you would call “good faith”.
Even leaving aside the rather odd US scale, a liberal economic system is inherently capitalist, since capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, wage labour, exploitation of workers and pricing in a market. All this is still present in what you call a liberal economic system (even if some of these effects are dampened) without touching the root of the problem, so it is indistinguishable from, or even equal to, capitalism, whether in an unregulated or regulated flavour.
I appreciate you trying to answer a question in good faith, but you’re conflating ‘liberal’ with ‘vaguely left-leaning’, and none of what you’ve said makes any sense outside of current US political ‘discourse’ where ‘Liberal’ means ‘slightly left-wing’.
What you describe as liberal economics is closer to Keynsianism or Social Democracy.
In economics, the ‘Liberal’ school of thought is generally against regulation and interference in the market, seeing it as being ‘self-regulating’. In economic terms, Reagan and Thatcher were Liberals - hence them being associated with ‘Neoliberalism’.
The whole thing you said about Capitalism tending towards monopoly is actually a very Marxist/Socialist idea - Liberal economic theory tends to argue that monopolies form because of government and that they wouldn’t occur in a truly free market (although its more nuanced than that, there’s major disagreements over ‘Natural Monopolies’ etc. within the Liberal school). Source: look up any Liberal economist/thinker and their view on monopolies. E.g Friedman, J.S Mill.
Capitalism being an economic system doesn’t make it apolitical. ‘In theory’ Liberalism and Capitalism are very very closely intertwined, it’s not implicit, it’s absolutely explicit if you read any Liberal political or economic theory.
Also the idea of slightly changing our voting systems as the way to drive change is quite hilarious. Sure, moving away from FPTP would probably help a bit, but it’s not like countries with other systems are doing fine. These issues are more fundamental. And historically, fundamental change has never occured through small technical adjustments to political systems.
Good response! Thanks for the further reading! I was never an economics student, this post just felt like disingenuous US political arguments so I appreciate someone with a real background chiming in!
I’m not an expert by any means, but did Politics and Economics as my undergrad and did decently well in it; am happy to share my knoweldge. Also wanted to apologise if parts of my previous post seemed a bit condescending, wasn’t my intention.
Would be happy to debate/discuss more at any point if you’re interested.
Figure I might as well drop some more reading recommendations:
Specific to the topics of the discussion:
Chapter 14, from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon ChangThis basically expands on the meme, and explains the connection between liberal economics and ‘pro-rich’ economics, in only 9 pages. Not very in-depth, but quite good and readable - although note that this book is very much a pop-economics polemic, and Chang is an Institutionalist economist and very skeptical of ‘free market’ economics. He’s fairly controversial among economists, but not super radical or anything. Link to pdf of this chapter only.The whole book is free to borrow on Archive.org.
**Chapter VIII ‘Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and Labor’, from Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.**For a free-market take on monopolies, although a bit of an outdated take (the data has changed a lot, but the general arguments are still relevant). Free on Archive.org
Are markets efficient or do they tend towards monopoly? The verdict is in, by Joseph StiglitzPretty short article that expands on our discussion about monopolies in the modern world. Link to article
Chapter 2, Section 3 of ‘The Poverty of Philosophy’ by Karl MarxThis is basically Marx arguing against Proudhon, so a lot of it is weird out of context, but does sum up Marx’s views on monopolies. As with most Marx, not super easy to read, but very interesting. Link to text from Marxists.org
Chapter 2, ‘Liberalism and Liberal Thinkers’, from 101 Great Liberal Thinkers by Eamonn ButlerA summary of liberal ideas, written by a self-described (neo)Liberal and founder of the Adam Smith Institute. Freely available from the American Economic Association
More Generally Relevant / In-Depth Stuff:
The Wordly Philosophers by Robert HeilbronerIs a nice and readable intro to the history of economic thought, would recommend for an enjoyable read and broad overview. Available to borrow on Archive.org
Economics: The Users Guide by Ha-Joon ChangThis is somewhat of a ‘pop-economics’ text so is quite readable, but also has solid knowlege. Chapter 4 has a nice summary of some of the major schools of thought, and there’s a lot of interesting economic history in here as well. Available to borrow on Archive.org
Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning: Why Economists Should Re-engage with Political Philosophy by Michael SandelShort article with interesting arguments about the limits of economics as a field, especially in considering the moral implications of allocating resources using markets. Freely available from the American Economic Association
Chapter 3, ‘The Nature of Heterodox Economics’ from ‘Essays on the Nature and State of Modern Economics’ by Tony LawsonAlthough this one is very academic, chapter 3 is only about 20 pages long and has a fairly good summary of some of the assumptions and criticisms of ‘modern mainstream economics’ vs ‘heterodox economics’. The rest of the book is excellent as well, it’s focused on a critique of modern economics and its attempts to be a ‘hard science’ by using lots of maths and models, with questionable results. Link to a pdf here.
Chapter ‘The Place of Liberty’ from An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan WolffEspecially recommend the section on problems with liberalism Available to borrow on Archive.org
The Economy by Core EconomicsThis is just a textbook, not exactly light reading but it’s free and written by some pretty high-profile (mainstream) economists. It’s what I was mainly taught from so if you’re interested in what they teach at mainstream econ courses but want to skip the whole ‘paying massive tuition fees’ part, here it is. Link to the textbook on their website.
Also, Marginal Revolution has good stuff on econ on their YT channel and website; they are very pro-free market.
Hope this is interesting and/or useful, have a nice day!
Uh, liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable - you know, something that doesn’t leave so many people jobless or homeless.
liberals tend to want to shift capitalism towards something more equitable
No, they don’t - they try to reform capitalism to head off revolt against the capitalist status quo. That is why liberal reforms to capitalism (at best) only makes life better for a certain part of the working class - see how Roosevelt’s GI Bill left black vets and their communities out in the cold for an example. When this fails to protect the capitalist order, liberal-types will happily co-operate with fascists to violently repress the working class - see Weimar Germany for an example of that.
If you are the reading type, I’d suggest Clara Mattei’s The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism - I haven’t encountered anyone who explains the history as well as she does.
Liberals are not your friends - Malcolm X was perfectly accurate when he described them as “smiling foxes.”
Should cars be required by law not to let you drive to drug deals? Should glasses be required by law not to let you read banned books? Should testicles be required by law not to produce government-unsanctioned sperm?
I used to wear mittens in the shower but I changed to fingerless gloves around 2014 when it became the new trend. You gotta know how to stay cool despite standing in a hot shower. Go with the flow.
Not really, If you started this at the beginning of the regular NFL season and included the playoffs in the run up to the super bowl, you would need to start with 1,048,576 emails to have one person see you pick every game prior to the super bowl. And this is only if you send an email for one game each round.
If you started and sent an email to every person who watch the super bowl last year (~84 million) you would only have about 80 people left at the end and you would have sent close to a billion emails to do it.
I mean, this lemmy post would be exhibit #1 - but even without it it is not at all difficult to establish intent to deceive from just the actions OP is suggesting and nothing more. Sometimes intent is the easy part.
…When you get investigated for fraud? Likely when they check your outgoing. But also by communicating with other targets of your fraudulent service. I doubt you will send 80 million emails manually, but go right ahead and test that.
The original question was whether it was legal, not whether they could get away with it. If they did get caught, there is a very high likelihood they could be convicted of fraud.
...what do you think is going on here, in this thread?
It's talking about taking peoples' money based on your (fraudulent) ability to predict the outcome. There will be victims in the form of the people whose money was taken. Some of those people will see that the result didn't match. The fraud will be evident to the defrauded victims.
After your shit gets raided and there's evidence that you sent out two sets of information to different people... Yeah that's extremely probable.
You don't understand how much of an electronic trail mass mailing would leave. If your mark and a burned mark were on the same email provider, a warrant would uncover this extremely simple scam.
I understand completely, you would need a reason to start investigating them to begin with, and that’s pretty easy to claim after, but during how would you know frauds happening…?
I love these comments. It shows the federation is working. If reddit did this it was “oh no what now” but with lemmy it’s just “time to move to another instance”
Not really, in seeking to gain power, they create something worthless by destroying what is valuable, but by working together, we create something glorious that none of us are really in charge of.
I just don’t like the idea of having 500 accounts after it’s all said and done, especially if most of them wind up being unused… unless I’m fundamentally doing something wrong by creating a new account on every instance I want to use?
you need an account to go to an instance that isn’t federated. this is the core flaw that makes this entire system unusable for normal people. you don’t want to have multiple accounts just so you can post the same memes in 12 different servers to get 1/40th the interaction you would get if everyone was centralized. this isn’t a discord server, its a link aggregator and decentralizing the aggregator is antithetical to making this service work.
it doesn’t mater what you like, if the platform can not grow from here, witch it can not in its current state, it will simply bleed users and die like voat.
Or just find an instance that has federation policies you agree with, you don’t need to post in every single instance - maybe some defederated because there were too many people posting the same shitty memes. And who needs 40x interaction? Reddit was too big, too many people competing for attention.
and then that instance get defederated by one of the big instances or has other performance issues because its not one of the big instances and now you’re stuck picking from the big instances if you want any kind of content and curation on a socialmedia platform built to centralize users into interest groups so they can curate and discuss content. but yeah, defederatino is good for that, lets you live in your completely unpopulated bubble.
Very hypothetical there, like you’re reaching for things that could go wrong.
I know that centralisation doesn’t work because I’ve seen it turn the internet to shit over the last 15 years. If I had it my way we’d go back to small independent forums with no federation because they were much better communities. But in the name of progress, federation does have some advantages, but as soon as things start getting too big there should absolutely be defederation to prevent the platform from getting like Reddit.
im telling you things that are happening right not to various instances for various reasons, all of them down to the personal bias of the admins, not the consensus of the users in that instance.
You fundamentally so not understand the problem with federation and the admins. Is not a good thing just because it is, it’s the same problem, in a different coat.
To be honest, if that person is so keen on centralized platform, why are they even here? They should just go back to Reddit, they might come back here later
No way! I’ve got a r pi 4 buried somewhere in my garage. Gonna have to try to set up my own instance. Is there a starter guide for people of limited intelligence? How’d you get yours set up?
After you got lemmy up and running on your raspberry pi, the next hurdle is making it accessible from the internet so other lemmy instances can federate with your instance. There are several way to do that, such as getting a static ip address from your ISP and forwarding port 80 and 443 to your pi from your router config, using clodflare tunnel, etc.
Just ask the selfhost community if you hit a roadblock. They love getting more people to join their rank.
i have been on the mastodon side of the fedi since 2018
single user instances do not get defed’d out of nowhere. i’ve rarely (if ever) seen that happen. now if you’re an asshole in a single user instance then maybe, but there isn’t anyone going “ooh i’m gonna defederate from this guy” without you provoking them in some way.
When single user interfaces start becoming problematic, they will be. Neither of these platforms have reached a large enough size to need it, but it will eventually be necessary for groups of servers to only federated with themselves to ensure compatibility and scalability. We already have issues with propagating content, systemic and programmaticly.
I mean you won’t, they way it’s going to shake out is instances with similar values form nation-states and cut ties with other nation-states they dont agree with
well probably see the emergence of meta-alliances soon that dictate the degree of separation of a blacklisted instance.
I got banned for quoting a subreddit rule to a mod (as a reason the mod was out of line) after they posted why they banned someone. I may not be good at sports or computers, but I’m part of the team now!
I got banned from a subreddit for pointing out to the mod that their comment equating “receiving a poor-quality product” to “rape” was unnecessary and short-sighted. They then told me that they were a victim, thus it is okay.
Is she really a bigot? To me she just appears to be someone who can not seperate porn from other aspects of her life. Does she really hate all these groups of people even outside this “Mother” persona?
Hardware bring up is when you design a pcb or something and there doesn’t yet exist any firmware for it. It would be the ability to debug the board and write firmware for it.
lemmy.dbzer0.com
Top