DandomRude
@DandomRude@lemmy.world
- Comment on Justice system in America 1 month ago:
The Internet’s own boy. RIP - he would have hated what they did to reddit.
- Comment on Is there a more politically and ideologically diverse alternative for Lemmy? 2 months ago:
Yes, that’s probably true. For me, however, neutrality presupposes diversity - at least to a certain degree. As in the maxim of quality journalism: the assumption here is that a journalist can never be truly objective. This is why an attempt is made to allow opposing perspectives on a topic to have their say, so that the reader or viewer can form their own opinion.
Of course, this principle does not work in an environment in which differing opinions or perspectives are generally unwelcome. This is probably the case with Lemmy and other Fediverse applications for some topics. But I think that this doesn’t just apply to the Fediverse, but to social media in general. It seems to me just as you say: if you only encounter rejection on a platform, in a community or on an instance if you disagree with the majority, you will move elsewhere - which in turn will probably lead to you eventually finding yourself in an environment where the majority of others are of the same opinion.
Of course, it would be highly desirable if people were more open-minded, but I’m afraid that’s a utopia. In any case, I don’t have the impression that the advent of social media has fundamentally brought open exchange forward.
On the contrary, I have the impression that political discourse in many countries, for example, is now characterized by the very strategies that make social media posts successful: the abbreviated presentation of complex contexts, the invocation of enemy images, sometimes even straight-up trolling. But perhaps this is just a perception error on my part.
- Comment on Is there a more politically and ideologically diverse alternative for Lemmy? 2 months ago:
I’m not sure whether there can be an ideologically neutral social media platform at all. I think there will always be a significant proportion of users who are not interested in discussion, arguments and open minded exchange, but rather in seeing their world view confirmed by others or simply being part of a perceived in-group.
What’s more, the sheer mass of content makes an attention economy necessary so that one can deal with this flood of information. In my opinion, the content that is easy to consume will always prevail over content that looks at a topic in all its complexity (hardly anyone is willing/has the time to read up on it). So it’s often not about who has the better arguments or actually knows something about a topic, but about who sells their posts better. In this sense, it seems to me that social media in general is not really social, but to a large extent a competition for attention.
I am not aware of any platform that could solve these problems. In my opinion, this is not really the aim, as pretty much all platforms are not really about objective information, but rather about passing the time and entertainment. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you can’t find good discussions and serious information. But I think that this kind of content will never be the main focus of any social media plattform. The fediverse approach seems like a good try to me tho, because there can be “special interest instances” that can make their own rules to focus on whatever they are about.
- Comment on Trump reportedly asked Musk to buy Truth Social last year 3 months ago:
Musk has already turned Twitter into Truth Social anyway. So no need.
- Comment on Sweeping EU rules for tech giants take effect today. Here’s what’s changing | CNN Business 3 months ago:
It would certainly be a technical challenge. But I think the utility would be very high. In my experience, it’s difficult to convince people to use an app like Signal if they can’t use it to communicate with their Whatsapp contacts (etc.).
- Comment on Sweeping EU rules for tech giants take effect today. Here’s what’s changing | CNN Business 3 months ago:
Yes, sure, but why not simply point out that the communication between Signal and Whatsapp, for example, is not sufficiently encrypted? If someone doesn’t use Signal or Theema, you can only communicate with this person anyway if you use the corresponding app. That’s not any more secure. I just think that Signal & Co. could gain a lot of users if they also allowed (insecure) communication with other messengers. Encryption between users who both use Signal, for example, is not affected by this.
- Comment on Sweeping EU rules for tech giants take effect today. Here’s what’s changing | CNN Business 3 months ago:
I still don’t get why.
- Comment on These are trying times 4 months ago:
“According to the brands website” might be an important hint, tho. I mean Trump and his minions are not exactly known for making correct statements.
- Comment on When it’s Saturday and there’s no new content on lemmy 4 months ago:
Very helpful, thx. I might just reconsider.
- Comment on Offspring 4 months ago:
Alrighty then.
- Comment on Nic Cage through the years 5 months ago:
You don’t say?
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
You are of course absolutely right that there has been remarkable technical progress. I also completely agree with you that there have been wonderful developments in terms of the accessibility of knowledge, for example. Nevertheless, I don’t think that the internet has, on the whole, lived up to its full potential. What brings me to this assessment is that instead of having an equalizing effect, I think the Internet has created global monopolies that are now managed by just a few, all the more powerful companies (Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, etc.). I don’t mean that all companies are bad or that it’s not legitimate to make money on the Internet, but that a few companies have become so powerful that they basically no longer allow any competition in their industries. In my opinion, this is a consequence of capitalist market logic (an unregulated market will always produce monopolies) - and this logic is in turn reinforced by the network effects of the Internet (once a platform is the biggest, it will become bigger and bigger because it has the most utility). So I come to the conclusion that the internet has become more of a dystopia: I think it has even increased the centralization of economic power and thus inequality in our capitalist system. This is not to say that I don’t see the good sides. But I think that technological developments should not be viewed separately from the logic in which they are embedded. And this is where I see the problem: the Internet is no longer a free medium, but a platform economy, at least in the parts that are used by the masses. I don’t have a godfather solution for this, just as I don’t have one for effective measures to combat climate change. However, I think that nothing can change significantly in either case as long as the logic of excessive profit maximization continues to dominate. Or to put it another way: I fear that all the efforts of committed individuals will not succeed if we simply carry on as before - if it were otherwise, the utopia of the early Internet would have been realized long ago. That is of course a pessimistic view, but unfortunately I think it is also a realistic one. Nevertheless, I don’t want to say that it’s not sensible and worthy of all honors if everyone tries to do their part. After all that’s why I’m here on Lemmy and not on Reddit.
- Comment on Jan. 6 was an example of networked incitement − a media and disinformation expert explains the danger of political violence orchestrated over social media 5 months ago:
I think this could be prevented… if there were actually any halfway serious consequences for those responsible.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Sorry, it was really just a shower thought. I was thinking of two things: 1. the hopes that were placed in the Internet have, in my opinion, not materialized at all. Of course, there are many positive effects, but on the whole, the Internet has by no means lived up to its potential. 2. we are now faced with a situation where large corporations control most of the internet used by the general public. This brings with it responsibilities that I don’t believe these corporations are living up to in any way. Hence the analogy with climate change: a change for the better would probably be possible, but there can be no solution as long as those who are largely responsible do not accept their responsibility. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this will never happen.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Major parts of today’s internet are controlled by extremely powerful corporations - that’s just a fact. Private individuals and even committed activists have very little to no influence on how these corporations shape their part of the internet. Hence the analogy with climate change: this problem, which threatens the whole of humanity, could probably also be solved, or at least be tackled in a meaningful way. However, a solution is only possible if those corporations that are largely responsible live up to their responsibilities. Of course, this is not to say that private individuals should give up all hope and not try everything they can. Look at it this way: every post or comment on Lemmy is the equivalent of a properly disposed plastic bottle - just a drop in the ocean, but a drop nonetheless. What I was getting at overall is that you can certainly make a contribution, but this small contribution will be of little use as long as those who are actually responsible do not live up to their responsibility, because only these players could turn the tide for the better; but unfortunately they don’t; quite the opposite, I think. Nevertheless, every contribution to improving the situation is important. So please don’t let my pessimism get you down.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
That would be great. Perhaps there is a lack of funding to make this possible. Or the EFF, as an NGO, simply does not want to become a provider itself in order to ensure that it remains neutral.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Exactly.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
For example, efforts in the areas of data protection, freedom of information, combating misinformation, improving working conditions in the online sector, creating fair digital remuneration models and so on and so forth. Pretty much things that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, NOYB and many other such organizations are committed to.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
As far a I know the porn industry has actuality driven innovation in various web-technologies including streaming, e-commerce, VR…and now probaply AI, I guess.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
I’m not at all sure either - it’s just a feeling. Perhaps those who make up the world to suit their fixed oppions have become more adept at using the media available to them and thus appear more influential than they actually are. It’s just that I simply can’t understand how people can cling to the most absurd claims and even aggressively propagate them when it’s actually easier than ever to check facts today. That’s just mind-boggeling to me.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Patreon has pretty much already taken that spot.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Do you really believe that?
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
In Europe, legislation is like this because it was enforced by institutions (meaning the state(s)). This is an achievement of a still halfway functional democracy. The source is myself, a European. However, I can also tell you that things like the GDPR don’t actually matter in practice. I am also the source, who has implemented both tracking and corresponding opt-in solutions for several companies - nobody gives a fuck; neither the companies nor the institutions. It is actually more expensive to comply with the legislation: There are no adequate penalties whatsoever. If you hear in America that meta/facebook had to pay a large fine, you can assume that meta/facebook has gained that many times over from the infringement. Greed rules the world, I’m afraid. That’s the reason for my pessimism and also one of the reasons why I think the merits of neoliberalism are a fairy tale.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Thanks so much for that link! I have the impression that the point has now been reached where there are enough users to abandon all open standards, which were certainly necessary to achieve a relevant user count in the first place. Now the so-called platform economy has become a reality. That was inevitable, I guess. All magor social networks have been working towards this for a long time.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
That is true. Artists today probably have more opportunities to sell their work. I hope it stays that way, or rather I hope that they can continue to earn at least decent wages. I try to support this with my limited means, even though I am not a creator myself.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
All true, but all the technological progress has done little to change the fact that we continue to destroy the world we live in with our eyes open. This is my point: technology is generally not used for the good of humanity, but for monetary gain. If we wanted to, the world could be a better place, but we don’t use our resources that way - they are not managed by the general public, but by people who don’t have the good of humanity in mind. I think the Internet is a good example of this: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the www protocol, didn’t earn a cent from a patent or something like that - he was just interested in scientific exchange at the time. In my opinion, that’s a true hero, not Steve Jobs (he was great businessman tho).
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I honestly didn’t realize anyone was making fun of me (the joke is on me I guess, I just don’t get it). I don’t have a problem with the current times tho. But I know the content business. I don’t call it that because I have no appreciation for art, writing or other creative arts, but because that’s the term used in business. And from this environment I also know that profits are unfortunately placed above good content, which is why creative people, aka content creators, are not paid appropriately imo. I have also recognized this spirit, which I do not approve of at all, in many Lemmy posts. Only in disguise, so to speak: namely with people who think that intellectual property only helps large corporations like Disney. In my experience, that’s not the case at all. People make a living from their creative work and patreon donations are simply not enough - at least not for a regular and secure income. What I was getting at with my comment is that it doesn’t make sense imo to complain about a content creators signing marketing contracts - that has always been part of this business, even in the days of print media.
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
That’s the spirit. I hope this did not discouraged you in any way. This post was never intended to bring you down in any way, but rather to raise some awareness to how beautiful the internet could be. Yes, I’m making this up. Tbh it’s was just a literal showerthought - I did not think this would discouraged anyone. I’m very sorry!
- Comment on Today's web is the opposite of what early Internet utopians had in mind. Now the situation is somewhat similar climate change: even committed activists can no longer turn the tide for the better. 5 months ago:
I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it’s the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.