Honestly I don’t know anymore. It used to be Cookie Crisp but now that I’m older I’m realizing it’s kinda mid. But idk what would replace Cookie Crisp in my life. I like Krave but it feels more like candy/snacks than food to me. I say I like Lucky Charms but what that really means is that I like the marshmallows, not the cereal itself. Cinnamon Toast Crunch is solid though, so maybe that.
If I could only pick one, probably cornpops. I have some s'mores cereal right now. It's basically just a mix of Golden Grahams, Cocopuffs, and Marshmallows, its great and is a strong contender.
Even that stuff is too sugary for me (Weetbix in NZ) so I just make my own cereal with blackjack and hookers whole oats , pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, chia etc. It's really good!
I’ve really been enjoying life cereal lately. A good crunch without going overboard, and a little bit of sweet to it. You have to eat 2 smaller bowls, though, or else it’ll be mush by the time you finish.
I don’t eat cereal that much these days, but I love the Golden Grams type cereal, whatever brand. Cinnamon Toast Crunch is solid second choice, tho. These days tho, I go with the more adult cereal… being a healthy adult is kinda lame sometimes.
I love Lucky Charms but unfortunately, they're not sold where I live. The sugar content is probably above the official EU limit for cereals or something :(
Definitely delicious, I love that cereal. I also started getting into Cinnamon Cheerios Crunch or whatever it’s called. really tasty. I guess I just love cinnamon.
I don't know why, but whenever my blood sugar is low (I'm a t1 diabetic) I crave Rice Krispies so much. It's now my favorite cereal even when I'm not low.
Every once in a while I catch that off-brand Fruity Pebbles (Fruity Dino-Bites!) with marshmallows in it. Just blend that shit up and shoot it directly into my fucking veins please.
Weetabix, that soggy cardboard taste in your mouth in the morning isn't there to enjoy, it's to make you feel like you're doing something good and healthy for your body. No more than 2!
I don't eat cereal anymore, or when I do it's the non-sugary healthy kind. But among all of them it's really difficult, but I think I like Captn Crunch with berries. But it really depends on what I would be craving for I!
To be honest, I'm not sure why YouTube was brought into a conversation about free speech. YouTube is not a free speech platform; thus, demonetization of someone on YouTube's platform has nothing at all to do with free speech.
Companies fiddling with speech is perfectly legal. No one is obliged to give a soapbox to anyone. Companies curbing speech they don't want to host is not an infringment on speech, legally (in the US, at least).
An anaolgy might be: You offer your front yard for people to put signs in. Someone decides to put a Nazi flag sign in your yard. You are within your rights to remove that sign, even though you made a general offer for anyone to put signs in your yard.
People (again, in the US) very often conflate this kind of situation - a private entity curbing speech that they don't want to be associated with - with the First Amendment of the US Constitution (my emphasis):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech, in the US, is about whether Congress, and as has been interpreted by the courts, the government generally, may abridge the freedom of speech. The government may not.
Even so, free speech is not absolute. It remains against the law for individuals to use speech to incite violence, or to incite an emergency reaction where no emergency exists ("Fire!" in a crowded theater), for two examples. Another example would be communicating classified information to people who are not authorized to have said information.
There remains a real conflict about free speech, and it's the elmination of the commons. When the Constitution was written and ratified, the First Amendment protection of speech was more effective, because the way you would get your speech to a large number of people was via distribution of pamphlets and just speaking aloud in public spaces, where passers-by were walking. The landscape is very different today, where "public" messaging happens on the conduits provided by private companies - who, as we've learned, are not legally obliged to carry that speech. In fact, those private companies operating "open forums" can be held responsible for failing to moderate speech which runs afoul of legal limitations on speech.
The internet is definitely a huge change around speech, but the degradation of public spaces brought on by shopping malls - which are private property - had the same kind of effect. The fact that we tend to spend more time in our private homes, travel in the bubbles of our private vehicles, and do our personal business entirely on private property effectively reduces the public space available to exercise our own free speech effectively, or be exposed to others' speech similarly.
That’s where tech companies start to get a justification to fiddle with speech.
Which implies that companies need a "justification," which further implies that companies "fiddling with speech" needs to be "justified," as though "unjustified fiddling with speech by companies" is, or should be, disallowed.
Later, you said:
Free speech usually means that you have freedom to express yourself, ...
That might be colloquially accurate, but it's misleading in the context of private companies acting as platforms for speech, in the US (I know I have beat that drum plenty, but it's necessary).
Infringement of freedoms is met with legal consequences. Since private entities are not oblligated to be a platform for any speech, whether that's a forum on the internet or other people's signs in your front yard, there are no legal consequences when those private entities curb the speech in the space they provide for speech. The discussions around this situation generally carry a subtext of "something should be done about this," and because of the conflation of colloquial vs legal "free speech," it's easy for that "something" to feel like "companies shouldn't be able to do that," with legal consequences.
Who is talking about it being illegal?
People rightly recognize that there is a problem with the diminishing ability for people to express themselves, and conversations about that usually misidentify the problem as being with the operators of private spaces where so much speech is today exercised. Any solution which grants and protects individual rights is necessarily a legal solution. So, while maybe nobody is saying the words "It should be illegal for companies to curb speech on the platforms they operate," the discussion is about a legal remedy.
I was trying to describe that the problem is more likely the degradation of the public commons. The relative absence of public spaces in which speech can be effectively transmitted drives people's speech to private spaces, and those private spaces come with much greater limitations on speech. While I don't have a specific solution to offer for that problem, I have to think it must include creating or reinvigorating public commons.
demonitization means taking money away... that doesn't have anything to do with speech. Posting on YouTube is not "speech" in the traditional sense. Posting on YouTube is content creation.
"Speech" in terms of the context in which you've been trying to use it means that you're free in an open forum. Speech would be going out on to the sidewalk and saying things to people. Speech would be your ability to make a platform like YouTube for others to make videos and say whatever they want.
Just as you do not have the right to demand air-time on ABC news to rant about whatever you want; you do not get the right to demand space on YouTube to rant about whatever you want either. When you post on YouTube (or Lemmy / Kbin / reddit) those things you say are not "speech." The posts you make are content for someone else's platform.
I really don't know where you got that from. And I'm not freaking demanding anything. Just pointing out things that corporates be doing. Can't we fucking have conversation about how corporations can use their power to influence and direct conversation to be more "ad friendly" without people butting in with "aCtUally it'S wElL witHin thEiR righTS". I know that. I think most people do. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it or shit on the company.
You are free to understand me any which way you want but "speech" exists also on non-public or self-owned platforms. That's just dumb to argue otherwise. I'm right here, "speeching" away, on someone else's platform.
YouTube also significantly restricts the reach of demonetised content, though. It becomes very unlikely for even people who are subscribed to your channel to see your new uploads.
Still not free speech at all. You're pointing out the difference between being able to speak freely and being provided an audience. There are no nations in history or philosophers in humanity which supposed the existence of a human right to provide an audience to everyone.
But again, YouTube isn't a free speech platform. The public sidewalk is, YouTube isn't. They have no obligation to provide you anything at all.
This is undoubtedly true. YouTube is a private entity and there is no legal obligation for them to treat speech equally. But it is subjectively troubling that YouTube, a virtual monopoly, has little qualms about directly shaping the political discourse on its platform, censoring and limiting the reach of content about LGBT people while Fox News is on the front page.
They are absolutely no where close to a virtual monopoly. Anyone can upload and stream content online, and probably millions of websites allow it now, without exaggeration. What they have is a prefab audience. There are no considerations needed for free speech whatsoever.
If you want to influence their moderation habits, you need to be their customer or better yet, their shareholder. As just another leeching user, your voice means nothing to them and frankly that isn't problematic. 10,000 leeches won't influence them the same as one paying customer. I can guarantee that. And again, if you're just a leech then it really is no wonder why they wouldn't listen as a for-profit business.
There are troubling bits about lots of platforms and media outlets and companies, but that's not an excuse to twist up legal terminologies like monopoly or free speech in order to make weak criticisms. Doing so weakens the framework of law more than it does influence YouTube at all. Because that framework of law is only as valid as we use it. Countless examples of that problem abound - virtually the entirety of the Trump presidency is an example of why misuse of the law in common discussions among people is actually very dangerous. That's been a sticking point for me for a long time, and it's more important as years go by. So I'm gonna call it out, especially when it's happening on "my" team.
If you're gonna make accusations where we actually have legal recourse (like monopolies) then you need to understand them. There is no where close to a real monopoly in YouTube.
JFC... are you this daft or just trolling? I'll map out this entire conversation because you're not able to keep up with your own BS and then I'm done with you.
This started because you made a claim that YouTube demonetizing things = "companies fiddling with speech."
Then, before I ever responded to you, the next comment that you made was "Free speech usually means that you have freedom to express yourself, not that you're speaking for no pay lol."
So it started off sounding like you were equating demonetization with a lack of free speech. I replied, _"To be honest, I'm not sure why YouTube was brought into a conversation about free speech. YouTube is not a free speech platform; thus, demonetization of someone on YouTube's platform has nothing at all to do with free speech."
Then you wanted to move the goalposts, so you said, "This conversation wasn't about free speech, it was about companies fiddling with speech." as you removed the word "free." You have the ability to NOT post on YouTube. YouTube CANNOT "fiddle with speech" if you do not participate in YouTube. Anything you put on there is content that they own. If somehow, some employee of YouTube starts following you around and setting off a bullhorn anytime you start to talk, I'll agree, then they're "fiddling with speech." If some employee of YouTube (Alphabet), starts coming on to Kbin or Lemmy, and removing your comments from here, then I'll agree with you in that scenario too. When an employee of YouTube is removing comments or not promoting comments that they don't like, that's not a speech issue; it's content moderation.
it means your government cannot limit your right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions. you can say whatever you want but be ready for consequences for saying stupid, racist, bigoted stuff from the rest of your fellow countrymen.
Demonetisation in Youtube is not just about payment, it is also about the "reach" of your video -- demonetised videos get pushed to the bottom by "the algorithm".
but thats the buety of other things. We all have to be ready to leave stuff if its bs. I was barely on facebook, only keep linkedin for job search purposes, and did reddit till it just got to crappy. Might leave this but because its independent I could leave my home for another federated region. I can block what I want which frees up less boosted content and if need be I will go to yet another type of platform.
I remember recently they changed some of their NSFW language rules, people had the shits and 6 weeks later they changed them again. This one guy who makes summaries of r/amitheasshole changed how he says it to 'am I the butt hole'
It's silly crap like that which is the most annoying, trying to censor the most mundane swear words.
But it's silly crap like that that matters to advertisers. NSFW actually is the word "fuck", "asshole", etc. You might be able to say that at work, not everyone can without repercussion.
And that's not a stretch at all, it's why network television won't let you say either of those words either. Not next to their Ford and Samsung advertisements.
The entire premise of NSFW is silly to me. Like no one has an obligation to make sure YOU are safely browsing at work. Get back to work.
If you don't at least have reliable NSFW flags then many parents (and more importantly schools) won't let their kids watch, which is a large part of ad revenue.
"Warnings about explicit content work" is a new take to me. The history of such direct warnings tells us otherwise. At one point there were bands dropping F-bombs on albums just to get that sticker. Because it increased their sales and visibility.
The Streisand Effect is real, in big ways and also in these small ones. I'm not saying don't try, but I'm telling you it won't ever work the way you think it will.
What's interesting is that the MPAA Rating system itself was a compromise from the industry with the government to avoid the government stepping in to control content. That's where it started. Seems eerily similar no? It's not coincidence. But that's just another example of the point I'm making too: originally they rated porn movies "X" and agreed these wouldn't be in the industry- controlled theaters. Porn movie producers took it as a badge and began labeling their movies "XXX" and leaned into it so hard, the MPAA had to change the distinction to something more innocuous, "NC-17." But the cats out of the bag, even today every 11 year old kid knows what XXX means. The warning became a siren call.
Warnings are just the Streisand Effect, so don't expect much of them.
The NSFW flag is a really good idea in my opinion. It's a compromise. It's like saying "we're still going to have content that might not go over well with all audiences, or all settings; but you just have to mark it as such so that someone ELSE that happens to see the screen doesn't have a shit fit." I feel like it protects me, as the viewer. If I want to look at a picture of a party of lemons, then I know that what I'm about to click might cause me to get a bunch of shit from my conservative co-worker. Maybe I'll wait for her to leave the room, and then I'll click the link about the party of lemons.
The entire premise of NSFW is silly to me. Like no one has an obligation to make sure YOU are safely browsing at work. Get back to work.
I think you’re taking the W in NSFW too literally. It’s a user-moderated content filtering system. Be it at work, school, on a bus, in the streets, many people wish to be considerate of others and don’t want to publicly flaunt questionable material.
It may be to protect others from having to view it or to protect themselves from repercussion viewing explicit content in professional environments.
There’s also a difference between some text with ‘bad words’ and having hardcore porn or beheadings (NSFL) or whatever. Is there a grey area? Of course, different people will consider different things appropriate, especially in different settings and different cultures, but giving users the ability to flag content they post as ‘potentially questionable’ (synonymous to NSFW from my perspective) is just a means to respect other users.
Brand safety as an idea isn't dangerous, and there's an entire sub-industry in the adTech space devoted to it. The bottom line is most companies don't want their ads showing up on sites or in close proximity to certain types of content (illegal, political, hate speech, etc.). Services from these companies are used to make sure when doing ads on the open web, your DSP doesn't inadvertently put your ads in places like that. One example: https://integralads.com/solutions/brand-safety-suitability/
agree. Part of why I liked reddit was that I could customize my feed to ignore political diatribe (left and right) and just read the feeds that interest me. Lemmy is so infested with leftists that it spills over into every part of their community
One is the instances is owned by people who praise Stalin. Lemmy.world is not. And the code is open source so Lemmy is not really owned by anyone. All you have to do is switch instances.
What's left wing about simping for dictators? Just because they called their countries "communist" to keep people from realizing, they were both effectively totalitarian dictatorships, and that's about as right as it gets.
@Crankpork they're left wing dictators? The wings are about economic policies. Communism is an ultra far left economic system like pure laissez-faire capitalism is an ultra far right economic system. You can be authoritarian or libertarian in either group. Or you can have more moderate economic views and still also have more authoritarian enforcement or extreme libertarian/anarchic lack of enforcement
Communism almost inevitably leads to dictatorship though. History has proven this. Capitalism can at least coexist with democracy to a degree. For all practical purposes, communism and dictatorship are a package deal.
I mean, that's exactly my point though. People seem to be knee jerk assuming that the "leftist" accusations against the .ml instances are standard issue right wing hyperbole against progressive liberals and that's not the case. It's just as much that progressives are complaining because we have no interest in associating with tankies.
I think the only real way for anyone to get it is to experience it. I thought it was bullshit propaganda too and I also thought I was relatively far left before first arriving at the .ml domain and further lemmygrad. I am still kind of surprised that we have a community out there that large that seems to legitimately identify with the 'tankie' ideology.
It's a bit of a culture shock realizing that you might just be a progressive moderate.
That's actually really good thing. In the U.S. not wanting to kill trans people makes you a "far left" person according to right-wingers. real "far left" people are pretty nuts, man. The vast majority of us are moderates who are now labeled as "far left" in the U.S. political discourse.
I dunno mate. Does identifying with a side lay out your viewpoints on every issue? I live in a communist-ruled state in India and I know of communists who don’t agree with the trans ideology. Due to religion and stuff, we also have far-right people here that consider trans people as gods.
In my experience, lemmy.ml and feddit.de (for example) are in more left wing then milquetoast progressives. It's faszinating and refreshing, and I don't mind people speaking their minds. But I prefer moderate, too.
I would rather say that the average Redditor is milquetoast progressive. Heck, I start to really enjoy this phrase 😉.
As my feed is populated by a lot of German threads it is worth to note that moderate depends a lot on the country you are from. Bernie Sanders would probably be considered part of the moderate left in most of Europe while he is considered to be far left in the USA.
It also depends about what specific topic we are talking about.
In many places in Europe, being a social democrat when it comes to economy (like Bernie) might be considered pretty moderate. But then certain attitudes about non-binary pronouns or supporting special considerations for specific groups of people, are seen closer to "far left".
You don't see the amount of virtue signaling in Europe that you see in USA media productions, for example.
You need to do a little research before you get up on your high horse. They’re literal, self proclaimed communists. Lemmy was made because Reddit wasn’t left enough. They enjoy censorship and deny basic human right violations, and parrot CCP propaganda. They’re tankies. That’s why the devs instance isn’t federated with many of the major ones.
This is partly why kbin exists.
Wtf. I accidentally deleted my comment two times. Lemmy mobile UI fail!
Thought I was getting déjà vu while reading your comments lol. Glad you explained why I saw it so many times!
I agree with your foundational stance on using kbin vs. Lemmy due to the political beliefs (‘Tankies’) of those on Lemmy.
But, I’d never heard of them referred to as far left before. In my mind, Bernie is generally considered far left in the US (even though I wish he wasn’t).
I am glad that others provided their explanations of left vs. progressive because it helped me to better understand why you said left (instead of right).
I'm liberal, but I'm not at the "censor users criticizing the Chinese government because they're communist" level. I was also skeptical of what people were saying about the lemmy.ml admins (the original lemmy devs), but they're anything but miquetoast progressive.
That doesn't represent all of Lemmy though. I just wouldn't recommend joining .ml
Oh don't even get me started on the downvote brigades from angry leftists around here. Don't you dare hold a moderate opinion around them, or they call you a nazi and tell you to go back to 4chan. You can read my post history. All I've ever expressed is the same sentiment expressed here, and I've been met with nothing but absolute vitriol.
Because we saw what happens with Reddit. People come in claiming to be “moderate”, and very quickly shit like T_D starts popping up. Also center of the road politics in the US has had rights taken away from millions of people in just the past year, and it’s going to continue to erode them from more. I’m not telling you to change your political stance, but I am telling you that people see them as an attack because they have literally been attacked by “moderates”.
It's fair to want to ostracize those who claim to be "moderate" who are anything but, absolutely. Concerning civil and political rights, there should BE no moderate. Either you support people's fundamental rights or you do not. Either you support everyone's right to love, sex, and associate with consenting adults or you do not. Either you support people's right to choose what to do with their bodies or you do not. There's little left to discuss.
Having said that, the US (and the world generally) has a terrible record, left or right, in supporting people's civil and political rights. I'm overjoyed that at least left leaning folk now support those rights, but it wasn't a decade or two ago that those on the left of the political spectrum were parroting many of the same things that the right now parrots. "Marriage is between a man and a woman." "Don't ask, don't tell." So while I am glad they've shifted, I'm always concerned that if the political winds shift again, those in power will sacrifice individual rights in the name of maintaining said power as they did before they decided that advocating for our rights was going to keep them elected.
"Moderate" doesn't necessarily mean centrist or unalienable, it's antithesis is extremist. Being moderate and supporting peoples rights to be who they are just means taking a more practical and slow approach.
You need both moderate and more extreme views of progressivism, otherwise you get drowned in either. They support each other, they don't necessarily oppose each other.
Moderate has taken a negative connotation in the US, alas, where it means "okay with hurting some people but not as many as THOSE folk." Moderation in approach, I can get behind depending on the issue.
What you call "moderate" is likely viewed very differently by other people, since I assume you're from the US, and US politics has become a far-right fucking shitstorm. The overton window has shifted so much over there that "moderates" are degenerate cunts to more reasonable people.
Your post history shows you are solidly on the right end of the spectrum based on your expressed opinions while trying to justify yourself as moderate.
How? Why would you resort to lying? I'm pro choice, I despise Trump, I'm pro gay and trans rights, I believe in UBI for everyone (as well as keeping the free market in place), pro legalization (of every drug), pretty anti gun but I still believe it's peoples right to own them, I think police should be completely reformed and prisons fundamentally changed to be places of rehabilitation. What opinion of mine shows I'm on the right end of the spectrum? Because I believe in nuance and civil discourse? That I think all humans deserve forgiveness and a chance to grow and become better? Please, do enlighten me.
The forced distillation of every single position to being somewhere on this "left" to "right" spectrum is the single worst thing to happen to modern political discourse, IMO.
I'm a fan of the "8 Views" test, which tries to position views along four different axes instead of just one. Four is still too few but it's way better than what we've got now.
You have the freedom of speech, not the freedom to be free from the consequences of that speech. I read your post history and couldn't really find a 'moderate' position, mostly far-right talking points and splitting hairs about semantics. If the shit that you're saying is indistinguishable from Nazi and fascist rhetoric, I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you that you may have to reexamine the people you caucus with.
I also saw that you claimed downvotes and disagreements are an important part of online social interaction, and yet you're here complaining about "downvote brigades." I thought that was pretty funny.
Pretty insidious of you to imply that what I have expressed here is far right, nazism, AND fascism. Do you have any examples where I haven't been moderate? This is what I meant by downvote brigades, it's not just the downvotes. It's the snakelike way in which people (such as you) are arguing with me that I'm disturbed by.
It's not splitting hairs about semantics when I've been called a nazi (multiple times now) for espousing NOTHING in the realm of nazism, and have in fact only condemned it. That's a huge problem, and it's my current focus here.
I'm against authoritarianism from any side and I'm also against the deceptive bullshit you're trying to pull.
I think part of it is that leftists (myself included) don't like being lumped in with tankies. I didn't downvote though.
The lead devs of lemmy are tankies, basically meaning authoritarian communists of the genocide-apologist variety. They also run the lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml instances.
This is also why I signed up on kbin instead of on lemmy. The other lemmy instances are fine, but I don't want to contribute to the influence of the lemmy devs any more than necessary. Hopefully they try to pull something stupid and get forked off the project.
Why would anyone downvote for that reason though? That reason is why I upvoted. I'm firmly left-wing but absolutely not far enough that I can support their BS views.
Most likely because American politics frequently pound the talking point of "far left politics" when talking about the political opposition (moderate left at best from an overseas PoV), to the point where American liberals have been conditioned to assume that they are being spoken down to when this type of language is in play. American leftists are also very anti-authoritarian on average and do not appreciate being lumped into the same category as tankies by simple virtue of people only discussing left versus right.
It gets weird when we talk about this stuff on only one axis (left-right) rather than two (left-right/libertarian-authoritarian, though that's still a simplification). Specifically, I'm an anarchist, which means I'm part of the "far left". Anarchists, along with "ultra"-communists, are seen as being to the left of Lenin/Stalin-style communists. Saying that the problem with the lemmy devs is that they're "far left" implies that people like me are the same as tankies, and we kind of resent that.
@cacheson This exactly. It’s why I didn’t join there and wound up here instead. Communism is a misnomer at this point - all that is left is the authoritarian/totalitarian/Putinistas. Tankies and Putinistas are the same to me. Trumpists are the same to me. The only time I’m associating with those people is across from them at their next US insurrection.
What's the moderate position between "trans people should not be allowed to exist in society" and "trans rights are human rights"? You have to understand every time you or anyone else says some shit like this you're basically crying that people are taking a position instead of just watching the right wing try to ruin peoples lives.
The supreme court literally ruled to allow businesses to discriminate against people based on sexuality yesterday.
This. While things are new, and nothing has taken the place of "service that everyone uses", LGBTQA+ people are going to avoid the unsafe places which is going to push discussions further and further right. A "moderate" position that treats the bigots the same as people who just want to live and feel safe isn't moderate at all.
An actual moderate position there is to just not go out of your way to be an asshole. But some people want to be assholes and vilify those who may not be able to protect themselves. I can't stand the people who want to 'debate' human rights. No, that line of thinking isn't welcome going forward.
I firmly believe everyone has the right to live freely and to find their own path, provided they don't harm others. Hate speech and violence have no place in our society, and I wholeheartedly stand with the trans community in advocating for their protection.
Nonetheless, here's a viewpoint I have that I know is not accepted, but I'll share it anyway. I believe the compulsion of speech, particularly insisting that all of society adapt their language to accommodate individual identities, is a terrible approach. The notion of forced speech is problematic to me, and worries me greatly.
That said, I believe it's important to work towards a society that respects every person, but without mandating how we perceive them. Life's journey is all about confronting adversity, and part of this involves learning to navigate the world as it is, not necessarily as we'd like it to be. Instead of dictating specific definitions, it might be more beneficial to cultivate a culture of empathy, understanding, and open dialogue around these issues. This perspective is unpopular and contentious, but it is a conversation that we should be willing to engage in.
Anyways that's what I see as the moderate take, and it's what I believe. I had to tiptoe pretty hard there and I'm sure what I said still comes across as hate speech to some but I don't feel it is. It's just my opinion. I wish there was a place I could express it and have an open debate with people about it. We can't eliminate half of society, and we're going to have to learn how to empathize with people we disagree with in order to actually see where they are coming from.
Nonetheless, here's a viewpoint I have that I know is not accepted, but I'll share it anyway. I believe the compulsion of speech, particularly insisting that all of society adapt their language to accommodate individual identities, is a terrible approach. The notion of forced speech is problematic to me, and worries me greatly.
Is this the fucking Jordan Peterson position? Whose speech has been compelled? A man walked into a Philosophy of Gender class this week in Canada and stabbed three people, so sorry if I'm a lot more concerned with the constant hate speech being levied against LGBTQ+ people than I am with the anomalous concept of "compelled speech" which has not as of yet been an issue and only exists in the fever dream of transphobes who want to actively misgender people while working in public positions in Canada.
I agree with you, but this is a really bad counterargument to what they said. Even widely agreed politeness conventions to a degree 'compel' speech, so the debate is really around what speech is acceptable for society to encourage/suppress, rather than whether cultural changes are changing what people are compelled to say. Also, I don't think they said anything that suggested they are more concerned by that than hateful violence?
I believe the compulsion of speech, particularly insisting that all of society adapt their language to accommodate individual identities, is a terrible approach. The notion of forced speech is problematic to me, and worries me greatly.
...
Instead of dictating specific definitions, it might be more beneficial to cultivate a culture of empathy, understanding, and open dialogue around these issues. This perspective is unpopular and contentious, but it is a conversation that we should be willing to engage in.
Anyways that's what I see as the moderate take, and it's what I believe. I had to tiptoe pretty hard there and I'm sure what I said still comes across as hate speech to some but I don't feel it is.
If you had to tiptoe pretty hard then what you wanted to say was worse.
What, exactly, is the harm in calling someone a "He" who considers themselves a "He" or a "They" if they prefer, or "She" if they prefer?
Do you consider all social conventions about how we address people to be "dictating specific definitions" or "compulsion of speech?"
Can I decide to call you the opposite gender of what you know yourself to be, and you have literally no feelings about that? What about using words like "Sir", or "Ma'am?" Have you felt unfairly compelled each and every time you've had to use them? How about "Doctor?" "Mr.?"
It's actually even stupider than they're presenting it to be. The speech that was being "compelled" was explicitly not intentionally and repeatedly misgendering someone after being informed of their identified gender while working in a publicly funded position. I.e. when someone is acting as an agent of the government of Canada, they're not allowed to intentionally misgender people.
They can literally quit their jobs if they don't want to do that, our speech is constantly compelled in similar ways in the workplace but they never care about that, because that's how jobs work. I may want to tell customers to go fuck themselves if they're rude, but I'm compelled to smile and nod and keep that for the break room afterwards if I want to keep my job.
That's a lotta words for "I don't respect what people want to be called". When you call someone by the wrong name and they correct you, is that also compelled speech to you? Because that's all pronouns are. By your definitions all of language is compelled speech, because you're being forced into using specific words to communicate.
It can be your opinion all you want, but it's one you should evaluate and change, because it doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The problem is that nobody (or at least very few people of actual influence) are legitimately saying that trans people shouldn't get to exist. I have yet to see any politician, for example, express such a belief.
Michael Knowles called for the "eradication" of transgenderism at CPAC this year. Please shut up (E: corrected the wording he used, because he said "eradication" not just that it shouldn't exist)
No, it's not an important distinction. If you remove the ability of trans people to transition to their identified gender then you're relegating many of them to suicide.
I mean, you don't have to be a tankie that defends North Korea or the uighur genocides, to respect those values? Which is the main problem with Lemmy devs and main instances.
You're gonna need to be a bit more specific than that, because "defends" often does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to issues like that being discussed from a leftist perspective. Did they outright say North Korea is perfect or there was no human rights issues with the treatment of the Uighur people in China? Or did they say the situation in Korea is more complicated than is presented by the west because we've embargoed them for more than half a century at this point and point out how the Uighur genocides are not that different from what happens in ICE camps in the US to this day?
Bad things happen all over the world, and I don't think China or DPRK are perfect by any measure of the word, but presenting them as the axis of evil and ourselves as the good guys is just silly. It's not that they're good, it's that we're cartoonishly evil too.
You're being downvoted because people don't understand you're not talking about "far left" like some Trumper. You mean literal tankies, which absolutely yes some of the Lemmy Devs are as well as Lemmy.ml. It's also a reason I selected Kbin.
While I'm quite left wing, I have huge problems with them (as well as the main dev) being authoritarian, genocide-defending tankies. That praise China, Russia and DPRK. It's maddening.
Turns out people who work on open source in their free time to make the internet a better place for all are usually left wing, while the righties try to make money and fail.
That’s like saying you don’t recommend Linux because you disagree with Linus Torvalds. Using Lemmy or Linux does not advance any particular political agenda. And for the record, I like kbin.
You know what does potentially advance a communist agenda? Buying a phone made in China. Which phones do you recommend?
Now you've got me wondering what Linus Torvalds thinks. The only opinion of his I know is that https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linus-linux.ogg that used to do the rounds "Hello this is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce Linux as Linux".
Yup. Moreover, i want clients and implementations that help summarize and reduce doomscroll behavior. Social networks have value (imo), but they also have a cost and i'm tired of paying that. Reddit built a habit in so many of us to go back to it during any downtime, doomscroll more time than we wanted or expected, become overly invested in karma, arguments, etc. Reddit also has zero incentive to fix any of this, as it was perfect for engagement. Reddit is Facebook is Twitter, and i'm tired of those applications drugging my brain.
I definitely do not want Reddit. I want the value we got from Reddit, without the cost.
Buddy, doomscrolling is your own issue. Are you old enough to remember "doomscrolling" cable television for hours at night? We're all choosing to distract ourselves from something else or we're just bored. It's nothing new.
I mean, if you're having trouble stepping away from something, it almost sounds like you're describing an addiction problem. Everyone should make it a practice to step outside themselves for a moment and assess all their habits.
You're not seriously suggesting that a platform prevent its users from using it, are you? LOL where have I seen that in the news this week?
You're not seriously suggesting that a platform prevent its users from using it, are you? LOL where have I seen that in the news this week?
Jeez, this feels quite hostile.
I'm a developer. I'm working on this problem myself. You can craft features which promote a behavior or inhibit it. For example focusing only on live oriented features, making sure that posts show up constantly and with little ability to see what previous came, i would argue, focuses behavior on addictive FOMO. Features that help summarize historical posts to leave you with less of a feeling of FOMO does the opposite. Quite difficult to get FOMO if the summary of posts only changes once every 5 hours, right? You should see the ideas here. All of which i want to explore.
Features promote behavior. Some drive engagement, some reduce engagement. I seek features which reduce engagement by way of inhibiting FOMO and promoting the feeling of being informed on what it is you were seeking.
I'm suggesting a platform which focuses on features that help users avoid what i feel are negative outcomes. Which is wholly different than saying that all platforms need to do this. Why is this controversial to you? Should i, and users like me, not be able to use a platform which tries to eradicate (as best able) FOMO? Is FOMO other people experience somehow essential to you?
You can have whatever platforms you like. Just because an option exists does not mean it is hostile to your preferences. To me your reply seems short sighted, entirely focused on your individual use case and ignorant of a wide array of methods people want to use to interact with these products.
I am focused on my slice and my pie. You can have yours too, it's okay.
This argument that a social media platform not doing evil things also exclusively means it cannot attract an audience in some other way is a false dichotomy.
Seconding everything here — hostile/destructive platform design is so normalized for users (of Reddit and in general) that designing services that don’t encourage doomscrolling/“anger-tainment”/FOMO/etc feels completely foreign to them, or even impossible. But it’s gotta happen, otherwise we’ll just repeat the worst parts of Reddit (and other platforms) all over again.
@UnshavedYak for real. It's so refreshing not having to see loads of wasted awards on the most facile, idiotic comments. Or the obnoxious avatars people made in place of their pfp. It seems so hyperbolic but it genuinely feels great not having to see all that anymore.
Just to say, I 100 percent would pull RIF up in downtime but doomscrolling is not ubiquitous; I would pop into really specific communities to read about specific interests and shit that didn't expose me to current events. I am an extremely politically plugged-in person, despite avoiding it almost entirely on reddit (unless I was in the mood), but I found shit like RIF actually allowed me to be more selective about what content I want at any given time. That kind of fine-tuned control of my information intake, of course, is completely lost on New Reddit with its barrage of random recommendations.
Yea and i don't mean to imply this is something everyone needs to see as a problem. Plenty of things are addictive for some and not for others. Even regardless of addiction, i just want (to explore) a set of features that is kind of anti-reddit. Explore anything that can help me feel like i didn't miss anything, while not needing to visit more than once a day, once a week, etc. That i felt informed but that the random stuff was filtered out. etcetc
From a developer, often these features don't scale well either. Either complex to define (if customizable) or too costly to run, but Fediverse tweaks that a bit. We have the potential to have smaller servers with less concern for scale, etc. Fediverse has potential here, for me at least
That's exactly what I was thinking. Even with federation off it feels like it's already turning into a smaller version of what we had before. Not so much with post content or comments per se, but more for the already established "power users" and recreation of the exact same garbage, popular subs. I can't believe how many people I've already blocked that I got sick of seeing on every single post.
This is some revisionist history he was certainly involved and chose to remain part of it and support that type of community because he thought it was funny and he is gross
He awarded a unique "pimp daddy" trophy to the creator of the sub and was suspected to be active on there under an Alt account. He also publicly defended the sub as a demonstration of free speech as the ceo of reddit and it didn't actually get removed until it became a big deal in the news and they got really bad PR. You can find out a little more from this post a couple of weeks ago.
It's not just that he allowed them to exist, he created a special one-of-a-kind "Pimp Daddy" trophy to award to the moderator of r/jailbait and r/creepshots.
There is some whitewash in the comments there: "[violentacrez] received the trophy because all the work he did to moderate the site..." as if he got the award for keeping things clean, but consider that he contributed the vast majority of those subreddits' content himself by cruising social media for salacious pictures of minors to share while he was in his 40's, and the award is named "Pimp Daddy."
IIRC Violentacerz modded like 50 different porn subreddits, and he did a goob job by moderation standards so he was appreciated by the admins for being the overseer of the porny side of reddit.
When they sent him the award and made a huge fuss over him, they were pretty open that it was largely due to him that the site had been able to keep NSFW content and not have it be a legal impossibility.
Do we know he did nothing for years, though? Like, I'm not checking /jailbait is still up on Internet Archive to see how long he was on their mod roster, I don't want to end up on that list, but I've never seen anything that indicates he remained on their list for any particular amount of time.
Didn't do shit about the community as an Admin, for sure. That took way too long from all of Reddit. But that's also separate from the recent narrative that he stayed as a mod for rather a while or was a willing and active mod there.
I don't know if a timeline was made public but i imagine back then that either a) you might not even get the notification when made a mod somewhere or b) filterng wasn't good so that particular one was lost and drowned in a ton of notifications.
So it becomes somewhat plausible that spez was actually unaware of this fact for a bit.
That said, my gut feeling is that he knew about it but tried to justify it publicly and to other reddit employees as some kind of "for free speech!" sort of thing. I dare not go any deeper and speculate about his private thoughts on the matter...
Apparently in the early days of reddit, you could add anyone as mod and you didn't need to accept, it just automatically added you. IDK when that changed, but I was told by a user on modcoord that spez was added to that sub without his knowledge. I mean it's bad enough that admin allowed subs like this to proliferate and continue their activity.
The guy is a major DB, and has, for sure, done a lot of questionable to unethical stuff, but apparently modding that sub knowingly isn't accurate. I like to be right when I'm criticizing the dude and there's plenty to choose from.
This doesn't answer the questions. (How long was his account listed as a moderator for that sub? And did he even know about it? Finally, if he knew about it, why didn't he remove himself right away?)
I wasn't really trying to answer the question of if he knew or not. idk if he did or not. I was just agreeing, based on what someone informed me, that yes what you said is probably correct, that he didn't initially realize it. I guess my point is, it doesn't really matter when he realized. He was added without permission, and removed himself. The fact that he was or wasn't mod doesn't negate the fact the reddit tolerated these subs and he has done plenty of shit that's easily proven that it's not like anyone really needs this issue to be the defining moment.
He allegedly didn't realize it, but his frequent comments in various related AMAs (and the custom Reddit trophy sent to one CP-focused user) do not paint the picture that he minded being nominated one bit. Coupled with the fact that said removal of his status was not immediate? Yeah, not innocent in the slightest, but he's BDE now and makes up the rules as he goes. What could go wrong?
I'm a Reddit user of 16yrs and can safely say: He didn't just "doi nothing". Reddit and Steve himself actively promoted and supported the sub AND the main moderator (violentacrez). The mod had a "Pimp" badge added to his profile specially for him. He also had a golden Reddit Snoo trophy sent to him personally.
The original and main mod had a couple of AMAs that were often commented in by admins like Spez and Ohanian.
I'm at fifteen - same username - and my signup predates the subreddit system, I was definitely there at the time.
That's why I'm expressing doubt - this telling isn't really adding anything I wasn't aware of, I just think you're missing a few details and filling in the gaps with a more lurid narrative than would be strictly accurate.
Reddit and Steve himself actively promoted and supported the sub AND the main moderator (violentacrez). The mod had a "Pimp" badge added to his profile specially for him. He also had a golden Reddit Snoo trophy sent to him personally.
I never saw site Admin or Steve promote /r/jailbait, and I was one of the voices yelling at them to take it down, so I feel confident that I was genuinely paying attention to the issue while it was live and present. That a huge part why I'm asking for some more concrete confirmation that they did promote /r/jailbait, if it happened. I did see them honour VA and give him the custom award - for the sake of being specific, it was actually titled "Pimp Daddy" and it was related to his running some hundreds of different porn subreddits.
The original and main mod had a couple of AMAs that were often commented in by admins like Spez and Ohanian.
Reddit Admin made a huge deal about fussing over him because he personally oversaw that some 95% of NSFW subreddits were compliant with the law and with Reddit rules. The fact that "jailbait" and similar distasteful subs were included in that sure is shitty, but leaving out the context that VA collected NSFW subs, in large part because he didn't trust who might otherwise want to run them, does leave this version as something that seems like it's sacrificing strict accuracy for the sake of feeding the current anti-Spez sentiments.
It's hard to say exactly what actually happened because all we have are account from users who were active back then, but I can't seem to find any archives of the moderator list. Some old Reddit users say that it was indeed possible to add people as moderators without their consent (something I noticed recently that you can also do on Lemmy, hope it gets fixed soon 🙊) , and apparently this was commonplace. Beyond user accounts it's unclear when and how he was added as moderator, for how long he was a mod or how active he was on the sub.
I tried looking for some archives of the subreddit and spez's account, however I didn't find anything that helpful. I only found two archives on archive.is from 2010 and 2011 (which I'm not gonna link here for obvious reasons), and the moderator lists didn't include spez. I also tried looking at archives of his userpage to see if he was listed as a moderator of the subreddit, but it looks like Reddit only added the list of moderated subreddits to the userpage after r/jailbait had already been banned.
Some old Reddit users say that it was indeed possible to add people as moderators without their consent
Can confirm, that's how I got put on the modlist at /DoesAnyoneElse for a spell. Someone figured I'd be a good hand on deck, hit the "add" button, and suddenly my mod queue was filled with a lot more bullshit than it was the day prior. I had to go hunting through their modmail to figure out if I'd been added deliberately or in error.
Just ...
I tried looking for some archives of the subreddit and spez's account, however I didn't find anything that helpful. I only found two archives on archive.is from 2010 and 2011 (which I'm not gonna link here for obvious reasons), and the moderator lists didn't include spez.
That also checks out with my recollections. I was pretty involved in some of the calls to get /jailbait taken down when it first came to site community attention, so while I'm open to being wrong - I feel pretty confident that it would have been something we'd talked about at the time if he'd been there particularly long or was particularly active.
As a somewhat separate point, I think VA - head mod there, among other places - would absolutely have burned Spez on the way out if Spez had that sort of clearly voluntary connection to the sub. Reddit had encouraged him to be there, then hurled him under the bus the moment national press caught wind of the sub's existence.
Exactly. And manufacturing fake grievances only serves to discredit the legitimate ones.
It would be fair to say that he and Reddit leadership not only provided a platform for deplorable communities like r/jailbait to flourish, but benefitted from them financially, while claiming that they can't do anything about it because freeze peach.
I don't want to be the one making those decisions for anyone but myself, and it's not the business reddit is in. We're a free speech site with very few exceptions (mostly personal info) and having to stomach occasional troll reddit like picsofdeadkids or morally quesitonable reddits like jailbait are part of the price of free speech on a site like this.
This doesn't exactly answer your question, but Reddit did send the creator of /r/jailbait a golden trophy for his contributions to the website. Here is an interview about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks8xuYRPnWM&t=458s
Yeah, I wish people would stop spreading this lie, especially when the truth is no better: As reddit's admins, spez and the others explicitly oversaw, tolerated and defended r/jailbait and every subreddit like it on the site, for a period of multiple years.
It’s funny how Reddit rarely if ever has stepped in to reign in actual problematic mods in the past, instead just encouraging people to create their own subreddit if they don’t like how it’s being run.
But now, they suddenly change their tune, and spout this sentimental blather about how mods are “stewards” and “in a position of trust”, and now they will solemnly respond with “next steps” if mods don’t open these important communities. Their arguments are totally incoherent.
'We DGAF if the mods are abusing the community that's only there because it has a good name. As long as the clicks keep happening, it's all good. But the second they cause US a problem, we'll squash them'.
I don't think Reddit has done one single thing in the last week that doesn't reek of 'we don't care about our users'.
Responding with "next steps"? So it's, what, about two more warnings from reddit h.r. before moderators are presented with a Performance Improvement Plan?
It’s funny how Reddit rarely if ever has stepped in to reign in actual problematic mods in the past, instead just encouraging people to create their own subreddit if they don’t like how it’s being run.
Because more subs and more workers mods means more content and more money.
I wonder if mods in some more enlightened countries could start to sue Reddit for being hidden workers and not getting employment rights and minimum wage. Some places have done that sucessfully for Uber and deliveroo etc with them losing their claim they are just a notice board for self contractors, companies lost due to the fact they set so mamy rules that driver had to follow.
I think it's just changed over time. Reddit was really different ten years ago. Posts by the admins about changes or their actions regarding drama were more common for example.
Agreed. Reddit mods need to see a sinking ship for what it is and work to migrate their communities to software that actually appreciates what they do. Reddit wants to capitalize on labor of love the mods perform.
Screw Reddit, I've already posted more on kbin/the fediverse than I have since the algorithm changes years ago
That's a pretty good analogy, only he would have to specify that he still considers all women to be whores in his bio to be completely accurate.
Honestly though, it's desperate. I don't even want to know what's become of Accidental Renaissance 'Under New Management', I'm glad the original team are here though
While you're correct, it's just a clunky term. I think some other way to refer to the whole thing will probably come along soon, and in a few years, people will regard saying fediverse the same way we look back on people talking about "surfing the information superhighway" or whatever.
“Internet” is closer to a lot of existing English words than “fediverse,” though. “Fediverse” might get familiar over time, and it might make more sense to non-English-speakers, but I think it’s a more exotic construction than “internet.”
Yeah, but we used to call it the information superhighway and the worldwide web. Internet IS the good term. It may well be that fediverse sticks around so long that we all get used to it, but at the moment, eh. I think if someone somewhere suggests a good alternative, we'll all likely jump on it.
Dang I totally forgot all about that term. Been awhile. Well it eventually reduced to "surfing the net".
The thing about the internet, is it was the thing to make it only one net. Previously there were weird systems like bitnet, VMSnet, where you had to juggle email address encoding standards to get balkanized college campus networks to talk back and forth to each other.
"The web" became the subset of the net, that worked with web browsers. Only one thing.
Was there a "The Facebook" period? Or was that just a movie name?
So then we passed through a period of brands. Reddit is a brand. It is not altogether surprising that people would refer to the fediverse in terms of brands. Lemmy, kbin, beehaw, whatever.
Email and the web had/have specific protocols associated with them. The fediverse has multiple protocols. We're using ActivityPub, which seems to have won as a standard. It isn't exactly catchy or smooth flowing off the tongue.
Ok, if we try to brain crunch all these previous trends, here's what it's going to be called, if it hasn't been already:
THE VERSE
The difference between the fediverse and the universe will be forgotten. Linguistically, people will not keep up with that detail. Only old timers / early adopters will notice that linguistic change.
Possibly, 'verse' will come to be seen as short for multiverse.
R/pics is also refusing to go down without a fight, and I’m kind of loving watching all this from the sidelines.
Reddit already got caught using ChatGPT to astroturf in posts supporting the admins, so I wonder if some of the people the mods mentioned popping in for drama are actually ChatGPT.
"I love everything that STEVE HUFFMAN is doing with REDDIT and will stand behind him in any endeavor. In addendum, he does not look like a crack-addicted lemur. End statement. Please insert coin to continue."
Dragon's Lair, when you look back on it, was a corporate grab in the arcade world. Disney-level graphics when all the other games were 8-bit, and the worst gameplay ever in an arcade game...because it was made by someone who'd never set foot in an arcade.
The only competition it has for worst came later when that hologram game came later where you're a cowboy shooting...Native Americans. Another turd that was all graphics and nothing else.
Sega's Time Traveller. It was quickly replaced with Holosseum, which wasn't much better, but at least it was playable. Sort of. (It's the most claustrophobic fighting game I've ever played.)
As an artificial intelligence, I do not have a physical presence in the world, and as such, I can't interact with a turtle or any other physical object.
However, if you find yourself in a situation where you encounter a turtle in distress, it would be good to help if it's safe to do so. Here's how you might assist an upside-down turtle:
Ensure your safety first: Before you decide to help the turtle, make sure it's safe for you to do so. Avoid risking your life or causing accidents. Also, some turtles can bite or scratch, so handle with care.
Gently flip it over: Approach the turtle slowly so you don't scare it, then gently flip it back onto its feet. Try to handle it as little as possible to minimize stress.
Move it in the direction it was heading: If the turtle was crossing the road, carry it across to the other side in the direction it was already going. Turtles are often very determined and will try to continue in the same direction if put back in the same spot.
Wash your hands: Turtles can carry diseases like salmonella, so make sure to wash your hands thoroughly after handling them.
Please note that it's generally better not to interfere with wildlife unless it's necessary. Turtles and other animals have their own behaviors and mechanisms to survive. In some places, it's even illegal to handle certain species without a permit. When in doubt, contact a local wildlife rescue or animal control agency for advice.
I can't help but think of 4chan's unofficial tagline of "trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls".
The joke used to be that "everyone on Reddit is a bot except you", but as that has become more a reality than a joke, it's morphed into "text-AIs trolling text-AIs trolling text-AIs".
A shame it doesn't [t]roll off the tongue quite as nicely.
Am I also a large language model? Let me answer that with another question:
Do you remember that bit in The Matrix Reloaded where Agent Smith occupies Bane out in "reality"?
I’d say the morning is the best time to take acid. You can’t sleep on it anyway. So spend your 12 hours of happy bliss doing something fun and productive, maybe outside in the fresh air. It’s probably good for your mental health to have a fun day out on acid.
This is something I’ve been wondering for awhile: if I were a mod on Reddit, and was being threatened by the admins to bend the knee, as it were, my response would likely be to remove any and all tools i had put in place to help me moderate, and say, “goodbye.”
I’m sure there’s something I’m just not understanding, but why isn’t this happening?
Because people really don't want to lose the time and investment they've put into building these huge communities.
It's like if the king just decides that your really healthy neighborhood and community, that you're a community leader in and are constantly defending against the shittiest companies and groups dumping garbage all over and ruining and harassing the residents (and whatever the equivalent to blocking posters of illegal things is), will suddenly charge you an extreme amount of money to do your volunteer job, and the clubhouse leaders/owners and other businesses an insane amount of money just to use the land (because the king wants that land to put up billboards instead) - because he wasn't making enough money on them before, but only because he wasn't charging them any money. And in reality, the king wants to sell the kingdom to China for several billion dollars and just wants to show how much money can be made from the billboards instead of the businesses and community centers.
Man. Fuck u/spez. Outcast that mofo rather than the platform. I wish somebody would just coup his ass, but everybody in his sort of position just always ruins it. Always. So it's the system, not solely him; it's the goal of... Internet Platforms. It's literally the same problem with government anywhere: if you have a monarchy, eventually, they'll do shitty stuff and eventually try to ruin it.
Your question has been asked even in the Roman forum, and even for millennia before. Perhaps there is no solution - perhaps its an integral part of the human condition. But we will never stop searching.
There has to be a way for society to function healthily for all, and to disable corruption at the same time. There HAS to.. Like, if we can feel when something is bad, we can eventually articulate it, and if we can eventually articulate it, we should be able to design ways to make it better. The society programming will get more and more complex until we figure it out.
I think knowing what we want is key. And to want, you have to first know. We've simultaneously made so much progress in the past 100 years, but also so, so little. The human condition is slow-mode.
have you watch cgp Grey’s video called rules for rulers? I think therein lies a lot of answers. the TL;DW version is that rulers need to keep their other top ministers happy lest they revolt. they have no such strong incentive to cater to the common people. I suspect while keeping the ministers happy they engage in either illegal or not entirely legal actions at least once in a while. indeed to rise as a ruler you probably can’t be too moral either.
so of course they don’t want to take away their tools that help them stay in power. I think the solution lies in what we accept from leaders in terms of amoral conduct. and there’s the conundrum. this needs to be a society wide thing where the vast majority recognize blamrnshifting, gaslighting, moving the goalposts and so on. and don’t accept to be manipulated and lied to that way. most people simply don’t care. and most people also use these exact same manipulation tools in their life as well. which in turn means they don’t want that taken away either.
that’s essentially exactly what we see play out in reddit too. most people can’t be bothered to act on spez’s selfishness. and the mods who by rights should be bothered cling to hard to their own little fiefdoms of absolute power.
The man in power won't be giving it up voluntarily. So you join the revolution, and follow a charismatic leader into a civil war. You win and in the end you find out, you have been backing Napoleon and now he's the one chopping off heads.
It's not knowing what we want, we all know what we WANT, it's knowing what we NEED. We WANT to have more than anybody else (More money, more power, more ... things)... But it's not what we NEED. We need food, water, air, a safe place to sleep, love.
But we instead spend a bunch of time, resources and energy on things we don't really need, and convince everyone else that THINGS define our worth, that we can only be good if others are worse off. We promote greed and hatred. We APPLAUD that shit and then try to emulate it. It's not what we need though.
Which only works with an educated and informed base of voters. Which is probably why the people who corrupt all forms of government spend so much effort in making sure we remain ignorant and misinformed.
spez et al wouldn’t be able to choose to keep a controlling number of shares. all the shares would be offloaded. he could have 1 share just like any other user.
laws that govern publicly traded businesses would not apply. it would be a coop or other model. details would depend on jurisdiction(s) but many do have separate legal structures for such entities. In the US, REI and in Canada, MEC are buyer coops which are fairly well known. There are also housing coops and other structures for inspo.
shares could only be owned by people who had a specific kind of interest in the project, such as being individual users, mods etc. furthermore, individuals would be limited in number of shares (e.g. 1 share each)
This is not a fully formed proposal. :) but in terms of thinking about how the world could be I think a worthwhile train of thought.
a person who was interested in this kind of thing could do a websearch for “the cooperative movement” for historical context. not to be overly rosy about it, the movement basically failed to accomplish its goals at the end of the day. however, it did make a lot of good interventions while it was existing. for example the famed (if crumbling) canadian health are system is a result of cooperative farmers’ movement. furthermore, coops which continue to exist under capitalism experience a lot of tensions and can become corrupted.
There's no solution in the same way that there's no "solution" to winning rock-paper-scissors. The cycle is endless because the desire to be in control is a key part of human nature, whether that be an authoritarian "I want everyone to do what I say" or a more oligarchic "I accept that there's others at my level, so we can cooperate so that everyone else does what we say", and any attempt to change those systems requires an equivalent amount of force that can all too easily lead one into side-tangents of trying to keep said force focused.
As a side note, Machiavelli identified the cycle in politics in his "Discourse on Livy" - a powerful and strong-willed individual takes power (e.g. Caesar or Napoleon), his descendants wield power with less and less efficiency until in time the aristocracy seize the reins, and they get more and more corrupt and out of touch until finally the people rise up and enforce some level of democratic sway. Unfortunately, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which is exhausting, and so over time things run down until some powerful and strong-willed individual takes power and it all starts again. It's not purely linear - an aristocracy can be subsumed into a strong individual leadership (e.g. the popes in the 19th century grabbing power back from the cardinals) and a king can be overthrown by a democratic uprising (e.g. Louis XVI of France - though technically it did go through a brief aristocratic moment, as he re-convened the parliament to try and get around the nobility who wouldn't fund his wars, indicating his powers had weakened). But in general we oscillate between these three modes of social organisation because of the difficulty in centralising power and in then keeping it from being corrupted (i.e. using it for selfish purposes) once it is centralised.
TL;DR: The sunk cost fallacy. It's the tendency for people to carry on doing something even when abandoning it would be better for us. Because we have invested our time, energy, or other resources, we feel "it would have all been for nothing" if we quit now.
I’m not going to go to Reddit to read a call to action. Is the call to action, “boycott Reddit?” If so, I have good news for you… if the call to action is something other than “stop using Reddit,” it’s the wrong call to action.
I'm 42. Last year I was 41 and discovered the name of the song is "Tijuana Taxi". This year I discovered "Regular Gas". It has nothing to do with the discussion, but hopefully future someone will be like "hmm" and (re)discover a gem.
@Frog@kbin.social True! If it is Important to know, dear @DeadNinja, please copy the TEXT over here, not a link to reddit. We don't want traffic to go there, we want traffic from there to migrate over here. :)
RedditMigration
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.