If you really want to compare social media to drug use, how does the need for decriminalisation fit into this? Don’t limit what people can or can’t do because you fear the outcome. Let everyone (ie users and admins) decide for themselves which platforms they want to see, and give them the tools to do so.
You probably see that you changed gears now, right?
I answered your question. That is why you should care and not jump on the bandwagon.
Just for completeness: i never said its completely the same. I said (and have proof) that social media can be and very often is addictive and keeping a profiting company out isnt keeping the drugs from people. Its cutting the dealer out. Basically the same as legalization if you will.
I agree with the premise that Meta is a horrible company and we pay close attention on how its federation progresses. I still have not seen a single argument that holds any weight, from you as well, against the wait and see approach.
“Because it’s the right thing to do” is not an argument, it’s a statement without anything to back you up. What is right is subjective to everyone.
Also, I have not changed gears, and still firmly believe there’s a lot to be gained. Any concerns you have, I already answered. Anyone has a place in the fediverse, because its core principle is exactly that. Don’t agree? Then block the fucking instance.
I have to agree with the other commenter now who said you’re likely astroturfing. That or you have significant issues with empathy because the amount of dismissal you show towards other peoples concerns is staggering. Its obvious also from the lack of counterarguments you bring that no amount of sources, evidence or discussion would make you consider an alternative.
I would pity you but I cant say if you’re not actually paid for what you do so I will just end this conversation now. At least other people are not only hearing your crooked perspective but also some sound arguments.
Lmao, I addressed everything you said, have not dismissed anything and countered every single one of your arguments and when you can’t respond anymore you start with namecalling. Maybe don’t pick fights you’re not prepared for.
You responded with „thats not an argument“ or „i refuted your argument“ without anything to refute it with, just your opinion.
I‘m choosing to withdraw since you dont know how to debate. No point discussing with someone who doesn’t listen.
Edit: read my text. I‘m not namecalling you. I accuse you of having strong issues with empathy since you dismiss other people‘s problems so easily. You‘re not even able to refute that accurately.
So I tell you to block the instance, or join an instance that has defederated with meta, and you would have literally zero impact of any of what you said, did you reply to that? No.
So I follow your addiction rethoric and give you a real life example which contradicts that exact rethoric, did you reply to that? No.
I have the same concerns as you, express them but have a different approach, did you reply to that? No.
So now I’ll tell you this, instead of projecting, pulling up a strawman and overall passive aggressiveness, do realise we’re on the same team, we all want what is best for the federation. But the great thing about the federation is anyone can choose what they see, literally. For all I know federation with meta turns out to be a giant shit show, for all you know it turns into what could be the best thing for ActivityPub, more users, more publicity, more platforms joining in. I am open to being wrong, but are you?
I do appreciate that you elaborate in your thoughts and opinions, I really do.
While that is true, I usually try to avoid biases. That is why I believe science, not people. I proved my opinion that social media has addictive qualities. The example you brought is not proof. That is why I didn’t think to refute it but felt like you were not being serious.
I accept that you probably want the fediverse to succeed but we have very different approaches to achieving that.
I can prove that the fediverse is growing organically. I can prove that aggressive growth is going to be very bad despite it being the current trend in business. I can prove that the fediverse is democratic and that meta is autocratic, and so on and so forth.
We are using different approached and have not been talking to each other but to ourselves, I‘d say.
If you‘re interested in a more open discussion, feel free to bring proof of your theories and we can discuss them.
I feel like we’re having an actual discussion now. However, you go on about proving everything, while making unsupported claims yourself, don’t you think that’s a bit hypocritical? Ah wait, I’ll give you some examples.
Federating with a 10x larger entity that has a ton of very well known names on their list is going to dwarf anything that the fediverse so far has to offer. I‘m not saying in quality but definitely in quantity.
Claim 1: no proof this will happen, each instance can decide the degree of federation, no amount of users can dwarf an instance they cannot federate with. Blocking the instance yourself will exclude yourself from any of Meta’s shenanigans immediately.
If meta ever defederates or limits the capabilities of fediverse instance
Claim 2: meta cannot limit the capabilities of the fediverse, if they change what ActivityPub stands for, we will fork ActivityPub into what it’s supposed to be, having our federation sans meta like we have now.
thousands of (again) hooked addicts will flock back to them. It’s literally obvious if you have any experience with addiction.
Claim 3: Obsolete platforms have no way of defeating obsolescence, here’s a paper on why dead internet platforms cannot be revived. There will ALWAYS be algorithmic, profit driven, centralised platforms, why would meta choosing to defederate lead to a mass exodus of lemmy when people who want that are already getting their fix? If anything, it could lead to more people joining lemmy instead. The point is we don’t know. Also, making a statement like this is textbook fearmongering, which leads me to my next point.
Fearmongering is if the media or the government does it, not people who are actually there using the stuff and suffering under things. That is called asking others for help/to understand.
Claim 4: Fearmongering - the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of something when this is not necessary or reasonable. source
It is not reasonable to deny everyone the federation of meta because you fear a mass exodus back to facebook, according to my previous source people will find their algorithmic fix elsewhere, but rarely the same platform.
Because it is the right thing to do.
Claim 5: “the right thing to do” still does not mean anything: for ukraine the right thing to do is for russia to give back their land. If you’re russia the right thing to do is for ukraine to give back their land. You see how this statement holds no value at all?
“social media is a drug”
Claim 6: I agree with this one, so here are your sources why decriminalisation, ie not punishing users of them, but providing them the resources and tools to help them, is the way to go. Not one, but two sources backing that up.
Denying people the option of a federated meta instance will cause less people to switch over, period. Having a place where people can still access the other platform, without actually being on said platform will drastically increase the userbase.
Don’t take my word for it, just listen to the lemmy devs:
In practical terms: Imagine if you could follow a Facebook group from your Reddit account and comment on its posts without leaving your account. If Facebook and Reddit were federated services that used the same protocol, that would be possible. With a Lemmy account, you can communicate with any other compatible instance, even if it is not running on Lemmy. All that is necessary is that the software support the same subset of the ActivityPub protocol.
Unlike proprietary services, anyone has the complete freedom to run, examine, inspect, copy, modify, distribute, and reuse the Lemmy source code. Just like how users of Lemmy can choose their service provider, you as an individual are free to contribute features to Lemmy or publish a modified version of Lemmy that includes different features. These modified versions, also known as software forks, are required to also uphold the same freedoms as the original Lemmy project. Because Lemmy is libre software that respects your freedom, personalizations are not only allowed but encouraged.
If you really want to compare social media to drug use, how does the need for decriminalisation fit into this? Don’t limit what people can or can’t do because you fear the outcome. Let everyone (ie users and admins) decide for themselves which platforms they want to see, and give them the tools to do so.
You probably see that you changed gears now, right?
I answered your question. That is why you should care and not jump on the bandwagon.
Just for completeness: i never said its completely the same. I said (and have proof) that social media can be and very often is addictive and keeping a profiting company out isnt keeping the drugs from people. Its cutting the dealer out. Basically the same as legalization if you will.
I agree with the premise that Meta is a horrible company and we pay close attention on how its federation progresses. I still have not seen a single argument that holds any weight, from you as well, against the wait and see approach.
“Because it’s the right thing to do” is not an argument, it’s a statement without anything to back you up. What is right is subjective to everyone.
Also, I have not changed gears, and still firmly believe there’s a lot to be gained. Any concerns you have, I already answered. Anyone has a place in the fediverse, because its core principle is exactly that. Don’t agree? Then block the fucking instance.
I have to agree with the other commenter now who said you’re likely astroturfing. That or you have significant issues with empathy because the amount of dismissal you show towards other peoples concerns is staggering. Its obvious also from the lack of counterarguments you bring that no amount of sources, evidence or discussion would make you consider an alternative.
I would pity you but I cant say if you’re not actually paid for what you do so I will just end this conversation now. At least other people are not only hearing your crooked perspective but also some sound arguments.
Lmao, I addressed everything you said, have not dismissed anything and countered every single one of your arguments and when you can’t respond anymore you start with namecalling. Maybe don’t pick fights you’re not prepared for.
You responded with „thats not an argument“ or „i refuted your argument“ without anything to refute it with, just your opinion.
I‘m choosing to withdraw since you dont know how to debate. No point discussing with someone who doesn’t listen.
Edit: read my text. I‘m not namecalling you. I accuse you of having strong issues with empathy since you dismiss other people‘s problems so easily. You‘re not even able to refute that accurately.
So I tell you to block the instance, or join an instance that has defederated with meta, and you would have literally zero impact of any of what you said, did you reply to that? No.
So I follow your addiction rethoric and give you a real life example which contradicts that exact rethoric, did you reply to that? No.
I have the same concerns as you, express them but have a different approach, did you reply to that? No.
So now I’ll tell you this, instead of projecting, pulling up a strawman and overall passive aggressiveness, do realise we’re on the same team, we all want what is best for the federation. But the great thing about the federation is anyone can choose what they see, literally. For all I know federation with meta turns out to be a giant shit show, for all you know it turns into what could be the best thing for ActivityPub, more users, more publicity, more platforms joining in. I am open to being wrong, but are you?
Edit: Why not wait and see.
I do appreciate that you elaborate in your thoughts and opinions, I really do.
While that is true, I usually try to avoid biases. That is why I believe science, not people. I proved my opinion that social media has addictive qualities. The example you brought is not proof. That is why I didn’t think to refute it but felt like you were not being serious.
I accept that you probably want the fediverse to succeed but we have very different approaches to achieving that.
I can prove that the fediverse is growing organically. I can prove that aggressive growth is going to be very bad despite it being the current trend in business. I can prove that the fediverse is democratic and that meta is autocratic, and so on and so forth.
We are using different approached and have not been talking to each other but to ourselves, I‘d say.
If you‘re interested in a more open discussion, feel free to bring proof of your theories and we can discuss them.
I feel like we’re having an actual discussion now. However, you go on about proving everything, while making unsupported claims yourself, don’t you think that’s a bit hypocritical? Ah wait, I’ll give you some examples.
Claim 1: no proof this will happen, each instance can decide the degree of federation, no amount of users can dwarf an instance they cannot federate with. Blocking the instance yourself will exclude yourself from any of Meta’s shenanigans immediately.
Claim 2: meta cannot limit the capabilities of the fediverse, if they change what ActivityPub stands for, we will fork ActivityPub into what it’s supposed to be, having our federation sans meta like we have now.
Claim 3: Obsolete platforms have no way of defeating obsolescence, here’s a paper on why dead internet platforms cannot be revived. There will ALWAYS be algorithmic, profit driven, centralised platforms, why would meta choosing to defederate lead to a mass exodus of lemmy when people who want that are already getting their fix? If anything, it could lead to more people joining lemmy instead. The point is we don’t know. Also, making a statement like this is textbook fearmongering, which leads me to my next point.
Claim 4: Fearmongering - the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of something when this is not necessary or reasonable. source
It is not reasonable to deny everyone the federation of meta because you fear a mass exodus back to facebook, according to my previous source people will find their algorithmic fix elsewhere, but rarely the same platform.
Claim 5: “the right thing to do” still does not mean anything: for ukraine the right thing to do is for russia to give back their land. If you’re russia the right thing to do is for ukraine to give back their land. You see how this statement holds no value at all?
Claim 6: I agree with this one, so here are your sources why decriminalisation, ie not punishing users of them, but providing them the resources and tools to help them, is the way to go. Not one, but two sources backing that up.
Denying people the option of a federated meta instance will cause less people to switch over, period. Having a place where people can still access the other platform, without actually being on said platform will drastically increase the userbase.
Don’t take my word for it, just listen to the lemmy devs:
source
So, from the 6 claims I listed, only one can be sourced.