This whole idea of infinite growth is so fucking stupid because it's just not possible.
Nothing grows infinitely. It's a complete denial of reality, and because businesses refuse to accept the idea they cannot infinitely grow, we end with no plans for periods of no growth, which ends up in layoffs and the poorest getting fucked while the morons demanding infinite growth take all the money and try and do it again somewhere else.
Thanks for proving my point by responding with the classic go to 'rebuttal' when anyone challenges crypto: "you don't understand the tech!"
Cool. Let's save both of our time then. All the best.
There are lots of arguments against crypto, but the main one is that it is inferior to the current system in every conceivable way.
-It's slower -It's harder to use -It's full of scams -It's backed by nothing -There is no consumer protection -It amplifies the existing problems of the financial system instead of solving them (money laundering/scams/financial inequality) -It's dominated by the same rich cunts you're trying to escape, but they're even worse in crypto -All networks generally need L2s because they're so shit and slow
Those are just some off the top of my head.
Additionally, it's been around for a long time now. Everyone in crypto is so involved in solving the problems that are unique to crypto and Blockchain that they've missed the fact that no one gives a shit because it literally offers nothing we don't already have that works better.
The only reason anyone has ever cared about crypto is because it potentially offered a way to get rich quickly and 'easily' and get out of the grind.
It's a casino. That's fine, you might make money. But that's all it is.
I'm not saying the current system is ideal, or even good, but crypto is nothing like a viable alternative.
I'm all for decentralisation, but you do realise that all systems end up centralising to some extent over time because it's just more efficient, right? Maybe we can find a good balance and make sure accountability actually means something in our systems, whatever industry they're in, but the answer isn't crypto from what I've seen.
Interesting you talk about gatekeeping information when you're literally parroting crypto echo chamber rhetoric because if you dare suggest anything other than crypto is the future you will instantly get shut down. It's a cult, basically.
I disagree. The fediverse just proves you can have successful decentralisation without any whiff of blockchain. You call them legacy systems, but they are in fact still current systems aren't they.. we're still using them.
Sharing your opinion is not the same as sharing your art.
I agree that monetisation as a standard probably isn't ideal, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think a lot of the artists and musicians here aren't posting with some intent to drive you to their monetised content. Social media is a great place for artists to promote their work in general.
I thought the whole point of the fedi was to encourage open social media. If you don't want to see artists or monetised content, you can block those creators or instances. The fedi isn't subject to your preferences or mine, after all. I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to decide what does and doesn't happen here.
The thing is, monetisation wouldn't even work the same way here because there is no algorithm, so it's not like you'd get (as) many people trying to create rage bait to game the algorithm.
Your initial post came across as if you begrudge any creators or artists making any money from what they post here. If I misinterpreted your position then my bad, and I don't want enshitification either (although given the decentralised framework of the fedi, I'm not sure how that could even happen in the traditional sense).
100% agree. This attitude actually ends up devaluing art and entertainment because it basically boils down the to the idea that "it's not a real job."
I bet you'll find that some do have patrons or subs or something similar.
If people want to share their work for free, that's cool. If people want to charge for their work, that's also cool.
The fact is, being good at something creative takes the same time and dedication as anything else, but because it's entertainment or art people expect it for free 'because it's a passion'.
Should doctors passionate about medicine not get paid either?
The fact is if you want a rich culture full of awesome art, the people creating that art need to be fucking paid.
I'm not necessarily in support of monetising the fediverse or anything like that, but I also don't begrudge anyone creative trying to actually get paid fairly for their work and time.
Maybe not the majority, but clearly it's common enough to warrant mentioning for the people affected by it.
Point 2 is better explained in the article. I don't take this as discrimination, more that while I will always aim to empathise and understand as much as I can about the black experience and be an ally, it's something I will never have direct experience of, so maybe there are some conversations that I don't need to muscle in on.
Yeah haha, I think point 2 is well explained in the article, maybe it's too generalised here.
Still good general advice for posting in my opinion, better to think in general.
I don't really understand why this is getting so massively downvoted.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me as a white person. Yes, point two could be more nuanced, but otherwise aren't all these downvotes kind of illustrating the point the OP is making here?
The people behind that startup are in tears strangling each other wishing they thought of this.