And how did you contaminate someone else's feed? Genuinely curious.
prototype_g2
joined 11 months ago
Funny you put quotes on the word liberal. You know words have meanings and definitions right? I know many people don't bother to check a term's meaning and end up miss using it, but that does not detract from the fact that the word still has meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Note that liberalism defends the right to private property (AKA Capitalism). (Also, private property and personal property are two different things.)
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
On authority, by Frederick Engels 1872
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Yup... right what I suspected! The Slippery Slope Fallacy!
Whats gonna happens when politicians realize kids are just gonna click “I’m at least [Age]”?
Many pornography work like that and can, as such, be easily bypassed. But does that mean we should drop the age restriction for access to pornography? Of course not!
Here is another example:
Murder. Murder shouldn't be legal and it is not. However, despite this restriction, some find ways to get away with murder. Does that mean that laws against murder are useless since we cannot stop murder 100% of the time? I highly doubt it.
It is impossible for any law enforcement to prevent 100% of all crimes, but that is not justification for those law to not exist.
Either you have a toothless law, or you live in a country with Great Firewall of China.
False dilemma fallacy.
Again, I'll refer to pornography. Many pornography work on the trust system. By your logic, that means we should drop all laws restricting access to it. However, that is absurd.
The point isn't to stop 100% of all usage. It is simply there to reduce the usage. You are forgetting that we are talking about human beings. Beings which have a natural tendency to conform to social norms as to not be cast out of their tribe (since humans cannot survive in the wild without each other, such would be a death sentence).
This law would set the societal precedent that people need to be of a certain age to access these social media apps (as shown by scientific data, which revealed that social media usage can have many negative effects on a developing mind). This societal precedent will, hopefully, make it taboo for people bellow 16 to access social media, which will, in turn, reduce, but not outright 100% stop, underage social media usage.
???
How is restricting access behind an age requirement the same as the "Great Firewall". Right now, as we speak, you cannot use social media until you are 13. They are just increasing that requirement to 16.
There are many many many other things that are already lock behind an age restriction and I don't see you freaking out. Here are a few examples of things locked behind an age restriction:
-
alcohol
-
gambling
-
cigarettes
-
pornography
Media has age restrictions. Books have age restrictions, movies have age restrictions, games have age restrictions. Media has had age restrictions for a very long time and it's high time the same standards are applied to social media.
Just because it isn't perfect it doesn't mean it's useless.
Just because there is no way to stop 100% of all crime it doesn't mean taking measures to reduce crime is futile.
There is a lot more to this than just blocking the site. It will also change social norms. Right now, if a 14 year old as social media, nobody bats an eye; but with the 16 year requirement, through all the sudden, parents aren't too comfortable with letting their 14 year old have social media. So not only will they need to find some free VPN totally not spyware to use (and even know that that exists and how to use), they will also have to hide it from their parents, as it is no longer socially acceptable for 14 year olds to have social media.
And before you say "Kids can easily get a free VPN and hide it." Never underestimate tech illiteracy.
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
I don't think that's what Kieselguhr was trying to say.
As I see it, they are simply pointing out that, when ever the USSR does something bad the west are quick to let you know all about it and how EVIL the USSR is, but when the west does something bad or worst, they don't seem so eager to let you know about it. It's not that the west did something bad, it's that they usually don't tell you anything about it, but at happy to show the atrocities the others have committed.
But I'm not them so I guess we could ask them to clarify.
just like folks still on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit?
As I said, Lemmy is federalized. Jumping from Twitter to BlueSky/Mastodon or Reddit to Lemmy is difficult due to the network effect. The people you want to follow aren't posting on BlueSky/Mastodon/Lemmy because there isn't an audience there. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
However, Lemmy is federalised, that means you can change instances without loosing access to the people/content you follow. Sure, the fediverse isn't immune to corporate takeover, but it is more resilient.
Migrating from Reddit means you loose access to all Reddit content. Migrating from .world to, I don't know..., .ml means nothing sense you can still access .world's content.
You need the plurality of site content
I wouldn't say plurality. If the biggest instance only had 10% of total content, that 10% being taken over by a corp wouldn't kill Lemmy. That 10% would be too little to perform the drawbridge strategy and so people could migrate to a different instance and access the same content.
Wait, Trump is doing what? Can you link some sources?
BlueSky isn't decentralised yet. Right now the only thing that is decentralized is data storage. You can't set up an independent federated instance yet. They promise they will add that feature, but it hasn't happened yet.
a .world or .sh.itjust.works - is too much for a handful of amateur admins to handle. Hand off the instance to a venture capital firm and you could see rapid enshitification.
Lemmy is federalized. It is expected that many .worlders would just jump ship to another instance. And I don't see how the venture capital firm could stop them... For as long as one organization doesn't control 60%+ of all user's instances we should be unshitifiable. It is possible for enshitification to happen... but it is of a greater difficulty, because the other non-shit instances still exist and they are federated, thus able to access the same content.
They could try and pull up the drawbridge and de-federate from every other instance that isn't under the control of the firm so that the content of the venture capital instances are exclusive, but for as long as they don't control 60%+ of all user's instances we are good.
It is not to hard to imagine that, if .world where to be sold like that, half or more would jump ship. At least that's what I hope.
view more: next ›
For those who downvoted without reading the link... This whole thing is satire.
https://savethe.ai/about/