Comment on People Want To Use Things But Not Own The Consequences Of Its Use.
jocanib@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Individual choices are constrained. Admonishing people for living in this world that we live in is straight from the Big Carbon playbook.
manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech 11 months ago
true but there is more to it, remember consumption and carbon production is just something everyone needs to do to survive in this world.
expecting your friends and family to use a billionaires network as one of the sole ways of communicating is not really the same thing as being stuck buying your food with too much plastic on it.
one of these you really do have control over its not a forced choice its just one people think is.
CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 11 months ago
Social media’s whole thing is the social aspect - if a community and/or its users are entrenched somewhere, they’re not likely to move because a minority has issues with the platform. It’s not unreasonable to want people to move away from Facebook/etc., but it’s not really true to say that’s a choice everyone has, if friends, family, and the communities or activities someone wants to engage with are there; if the options are communicating with loved ones on an ‘unethical’ platform or not communicating with them at all, it’s unreasonable and unfair to expect everyone to choose the latter.
manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech 11 months ago
in the past we would drag companies who made such walls in our telecommunications systems to courts and force them to allow open now we have people making excuses for allowing it.
CloverSi@lemmy.comfysnug.space 11 months ago
If you’re implying that the belief that companies should be held accountable for their actions and that communication platforms should be democratized is mutually exclusive from not villainizing people for wanting to communicate with their loved ones, I strongly disagree.
I’m not making excuses for the companies. I’m making excuses for the people at their mercy, who are just trying to survive with the hand they were dealt. People can’t be blamed for following the path of least resistance; the blame lies squarely with the path and those who made it, and fighting the people on that path who would gladly follow another is counterproductive.
jocanib@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I know, everyone in the world who is not on the Fediverse is an evil, lazy scumbag and the absolute best way to get them to switch is to sneer and scold. No matter what communities they have built, what access to information they need, how difficult it is to rebuild that elsewhere, they’re all just terrible people compared to you, polishing your halo in the corner.
This line of argument is bogus and self-defeating. Quit it.
manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech 11 months ago
im not suggesting judgement, you are injecting that from a perspective I don’t have.
this is what people do, suggesting its the same as the carbon problem is a bit disingenuous as its entirely mental rather than systemic.
i get there are similarities but they are not the same thing.
i have seen sites with millions fold and other sites grow in its place in extremely short time spans. The idea of the current immutability of the internets services is a fallacy and the tools to communicate are open to all, there are no blocks beyond what is truly easiest and most understood.
It is not surprise that there is an embedded profit in making sure people think its so immutable, wouldn’t want to bleed users from the garden after all.
In this particular story, most users are both unaware and are actually served a version of the internet that is designed to make them want to stay in the gardens.
jocanib@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Stoopid sheeple. They should listen to you, sneering at them.