Pledge taken Sir.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
2 points (51.9% liked)
Selfhosted
40296 readers
301 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Neat! :)
Ouch, number one hits hard. Sure, I don't personally use predatory marketing techniques on my kids [edit: or other people's kids either!] but I don't know how to fully protect them from others that do so.
After that hit of existential guilt your other dictums seem easy! 😆
How will they learn to healthily deal with it, if you don't subject them to it in a controlled and safe environment?
They dont. They vote with you to abolish this shit.
In an ideal world, I agree with you.
But in the real world, it ain't gonna happen, so you have to do your best to make your children capable of functioning in their own interest in a mentally hostile environment.
By that definition one could argue you should abuse your children to the maximum possible extent. This is flawed logic imo.
Besides, I‘m talking about mechanics that are borrowed from gambling. Loud „pling“ sounds, overly shiny colors and generally stuff that grabs attention.
This is not something a child needs to grow up. a parent can absolutely be expected to check games for these things before buying them. If others subject the kid to it the parent cant really do a lot but I feel like taking all responsibility isnt smart at all.
I didn't state that "logic". Per default I assume that everybody understands that we are talking about everything in moderation. Also I specifically stated some boundaries in my original statement, ensuring the mental safety of children during exposure to manipulative ads.
I assume no parent in their right mind would push their child off a cliff to make them stronger. But parent let their kids test their physical limits by providing them with a safe environment (e.g. playground or backyard) and adult supervision.
When somebody states "stay hydrated" it is not only pedantic, but also somewhat schizophrenic to reply with "By that definition we should all constantly keep drinking, but too much water too quickly will cause you to die, so your logic of staying hydrated is wrong."
source in case you didn't know: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Sure, warping my argument ad absurdum helps you get around it.
I stand by my opinion. Dont subject your children to predatory marketing.
Have a good one.
Thanks for the feedback. Had a good chuckle.
I‘m talking about i.e. ingame purchases and more specifically lootboxes.
To make the logic dead easy (i know raising kids is never easy): if all kids in class got heroin to feel better due to the schools inability to provide heating, would you agree?
Didnt think so. Thats how loot boxes work. Companies are broken and have a virus called shareholder primacy. Due to that, they need to exploit children to survive atm. I wouldn’t participate in this so no lootboxes for children, same for other ingame purchases actually but loot boxes in particular.
Yeah, I get the logic and I thank you for the example (shudder!). Again, those techniques are so pervasive, so normalised that no amount of parental guidance and handholding can really safeguard a kid.
I'm not arguing against you at all, it's just a chilling realisation that I can't realistically co-sign and live by a statement that I would hope to be basic decency...
I get you. The idea of having to raise a child in this situation is distressing.
To make another example: watching countless hours of tv is normalized for some people. This doesnt mean it has to apply to your kids as well. You can guide the kids to play only things that fulfill a minimal requirement. You wouldn’t let them play porn games as well I suppose so just because „the others“ are allowed doesnt mean you need to allow it. Its a slippery slope for sure but our society is very dangerous for kids. The alternative is to make games be totally sanitized (minecraft bedrock for example which bans people from the game they bought if they get reported in chat and it still has microtransactions) which rids them of all originality imo.
But I digress. I can imagine how daunting this all must be. Maybe you can find other techy parents that will work on a guidance plan with you. You could even propose that on parents night (if that is a thing where you live).
Desperately searching for /c/techyparentsupportgroup@instance.tld as we speak
You know the rules then. Make one. :)
10 (11?). You shall put critical thinking before assumption; empathy before judgment.
- s/food/[food/coffee/beer]/
I love this!
I take argument with #5 as a concept.
My region is against speed and red light cameras out of freedom and privacy arguments; so people get slaughtered by cars instead.
Fine for selfhosting though.
Studies show red light cameras don't decrease accident rates in the intersections they're installed at. Furthermore, some municipalities have started doing things like varying timing of the light cycle to get more people running red lights for the increased revenue. These cameras haven't been shown to decrease accident or injury/fatality rates anywhere they're installed. If you're against people being slaughtered by cars, it seems you should be against red light cameras since they don't do any good and have the potential to make things worse.
How do you figure? Red light cameras decrease frequency and severity of crashed at signalized intersections. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46552
There is some increase in rear ended, but those are much less severe than right angle or pedestrian collisions.
Cities adjusting the dilemma zone, or increasing speed limit; is a problem with revenue usage of red light cameras; and revenues should be going to victim funds. It also seems to be a uniquely USA problem? That could be a taxation and funding source issue.
I'd argue that's fundamentally a problem with car drivers, not with the lack of surveillance, but I get your point. People do have a freedom not to crushed by traffic, and it sort of outweighs others' freedom not to be caught on camera while crushing others with their cars.
Drivers and road design.
I agree. The argument would be good against always-on cameras though. I dont see an argument against red light cams.
You shall not think of living things in hierarchical order (x is better than y)
Having to choose between my child and my dog would be a horrible choice to have to make, but I know exactly how I would make it.
Good point. If you would save your child because it is „better“ than the dog, then you should really work on your empathy. If you save it because it is more dear/close to you I completely agree. The reason I included it is the amount of devaluation people do to other people or other creatures because they only know superiority as if that helped anyone.
I have also hired exterminators and taken antibiotics.
So you havent understood what I meant yet?
That you've employed a slippery slope analogy far too widely?
That you‘re not interested in my opinion but want to feel superior yourself. So good luck with your superiority. Good bye. Blocked.
Who’s not interested in whose opinion now?
I asked a simple question in good faith and the response started with my account being an 8 month old bot account. The poster is not defending their list in good faith, they attack posts that question them, then block you.
So no ads, sure, but then you need a commandment about paying for what you consume. Since otherwise, if we all followed the commandments, we'd be out of content right quick since you can't make a living producing it.
Thats the fun thing about it. We had that and it works without another commandment. The idea of getting everything for free^tm^ is the problem.
I really like #2… I’ve tried to wean myself off Amazon and it does cost more, but Jeff doesn’t need any more money!!
Thanks for the positive feedback. I agree fully. My wife and I are trying to not use it. Works mostly. Just when another (or multiple) have very weird things (like 10x the delivery time) we fall back.
Same here! I check Amazon last after exhausting other options first. Also I find that most items on Amazon can be bought on Chinese apps/sites (ali express, temu, shein etc), they’re literally the exact same, just cost 10 times more lol. Oh, and fuck the CCP.
What does #4 have to do with the digital age?
This is literally an alt account. A ton of these accounts is exactly 8 months old and this one especially has not made one post before.
Hate, is what it has to do with the digital age. People post their thoughts publicly and get judged very harshly for it. Sure, they‘re wrong, some are very dumb indeed but there is no reason to think of them as lesser, the same goes for any other creature.
This is most certainly not "literally" an alt account. There is no need to constantly post. So congratulations on that mischaracterization.
Sure. Because this is your first account on lemmy and you just happened to feel like shitting on this very conversation and me in particular. Best joke in the last 30 seconds. Now go away troll. Blocked.
I'll say, the sensitivity surrounding this is beyond reproach. I asked how one of the line items related specifically to the "Digital Age" and you immediately responded with negativity. What an odd response.
#4 is antispecieciest propaganda that doesn't belong on that list
Its not propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.[1] Propaganda can be found in a wide variety of different contexts.[2]
Also, discrimination or devaluation of anything (animals, bugs) is unnecessary for us to survive but is a gateway drug to devalue each other (minorities, immigrants). There is no rational reason to see a hierarchical order among them.
it is propaganda: it's used to influence the audience to further the antispeciesist agenda
You‘re totally correct! How could I not have seen that! Not like we’d have a problem with people accepting wage slavery for the fact that they‘re still better than [insert further marginalized group here]. /s
that's not what i said.
I never said you said anything. Thats the beauty of it. Its not propaganda since it doesnt appeal to emotion but to rational thought. Pointing out how stupid hierarchy is was easy.
it is propaganda. appeal to emotion is not a necessary facet of propaganda.
Whatever. Either elaborate or leave me alone. I‘m not doing the yes-no game.
i said what i wanted to say.
Very good. So no arguments and your comment can be dismissed. Good bye