Word.
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
1422 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
60684 readers
3628 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I just wish we had a bit more political balance here... I'm not talking about fascists, but more people that don't blame everything on capitalism would be kind of nice...
[Entire world on fire] "I just wish everyone wasn't so fixated on discussing the fire, how it started and who's responsible..."
You have to realize how mesmerizingly obtuse your comment is?
Too late, capitalism is the problenz
If nearly everything currently wrong with the country weren't due to capitalism run amok I could sympathize. But unfortunately it's not the 1960s anymore.
I wonder what else is to blame ?
Not trying to get into a whole ugly thing, just curious what your pro-capitalism stance is. Because I would definitely fall into this big Lemmy category of seeing 90-905% of modern problems being rooted in capitalism. So I would (civilly!) disagree, no doubt. Doesn’t mean we can’t have a reasonable discussion!
I would also be interested in a defence of capitalism that doesn't come down to "but the USSR" or similar.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Preaching to the choir!
It might be good to reiterate (in part) why we're all in here.
Honest question, what are the incentives for instance operators to play nice, so to speak? And not just recreate new oligarch safe havens?
It seems like each instance is a miniature zone of centralization and it's still incumbent on individuals to create their own circles of influence. For better or worse that's how we get hivemind echo chambers and I'm not sure it's even in human nature to seek anything else.
Alternatively we have to rescue our friends and families when they start to fall for BS and educate them aggressively on improving the sourcing of their information.
For better or worse that’s how we get hivemind echo chambers and I’m not sure it’s even in human nature to seek anything else.
There it is, in every shoddy analysis someone has to mix up the thing we have with "the only thing possible".
Echo chambers aren't part of "human nature", they're designed into the algorithms by the broligarchs to rachet up engagement -- giving them $$$ -- while making it impossible to build consensus and community in a way that threatens them.
Up until a couple of decades ago, there weren't widespread echo chambers on the Internet. The first version of websites (even social ones) were simple chronological feeds. Nowadays, thanks to the assmasters in charge you don't even know what you aren't seeing online on most of these sites. Comments look completely different based upon even simple things like gender.
Federation provides some answers. While it is entirely possible to defederate everyone you as an admin disagree with or don't want to promote, most commonly instances pick the option to not defederate all at will, as the majority of people actually prefers to be connected for the most part.
Although I realize something like this might not be possible, i'd love (in a theoretical perfect world) a delegative/liquid federation. where you can "delegate" your blocklist be an aggregate of other people's blocklist, which would allow a community of users independent of any admin to create a decentralized blocklist based upon mutual trust. To word it with an example, if I trust user A, who in turn trusts user B and C's idea of who(/what communities) to block, i'll then be blocking the same people as user B and C.
It could work in reverse too, if I trust user A who allows anime communities and user B who allows game communities, then I can see anime and game communities. If people trust me, they can see the same thing i'm seeing. Imo that would spur user interaction and make a decentralized way to not put any one person in power. If user B suddenly decides to only trust fascists, I don't have to trust them anymore and those changes would be propagated.
I don't know if that made sense, so sorry if that explanation is wack! It is loosely based on this concept that I read from awhile ago, for which I haven't thought of the possible downsides.
I haven't read the full article due to sign up paywall, but...
First, millions of small business owners and influencers who make a living on TikTok were left to beg their followers in TikTok’s last moments to follow them elsewhere in hopes of being able to continue their businesses on other corporate social media platforms. This had the effect of fracturing and destroying people’s audiences overnight, with one act of government.
How is decentralised social media going to help with this if the entire point of decentralisation is the opposite?
On decentralized media (Mastodon at the very least), you can move your account and your subscribers to any other instance whenever you want. You move with your audience, and they'll barely notice any change, using the same app to keep following the same person automatically.
And this is why I'm still on .ml there's not a way to move on Lemmy. Yet
Luckily, there's normally little cost to switching Lemmy instances anyway. You can even probably take the same username and register on another instance, quickly rebuild your feed and that's mostly it.
As everything is connected and there's not much reason accumulating account age/karma/you name it, the loss is pretty minor.
Oh cool, wasn't aware of that.
How do we protect ourselves from propagandists and censors? Large, small, popular and individual.
You do your research :)
I did my research at the heritage foundation.
view more: next ›