ondoyant

ondoyant , 21 days ago

i'd like to see how you'd be measuring "performance" in this context, or what you consider to be worthy of merit, because those things are not the objective measures you seem to think they are.

people who are contributing to open source projects are not a perfect Gaussian distribution of best to worst "performance" you can just pluck the highest percentile contributors from. its a complex web of passionate humans who are more or less engaged with the project, having a range of overlapping skillsets, personalities, passions, and goals that all might affect their utility and opinions in a decision making context. projects aren't equations you plug the "best people" into to achieve the optimal results, they're collaborative efforts subject to complex limitations and the personal goals of each contributor, whose outcome relies heavily on the perspectives of the people running the project. the idea you can objectively sort, identify, and recruit the 50 "best people" to manage a project is a fantasy, and a naive one.

the point of mandating the inclusion of minority groups in decision making is to make it more likely your project and community will be inclusive to that group of people. the skillsets, passions, and goals that a diverse committee contains are more likely to create a project that is useful and welcoming to more kinds of people, and a committee that is not diverse is less likely to do so. stuff like this is how you improve diversity. in fact, its quite hard to do it any other way.

ondoyant , 3 months ago

because adopting open source software is a societal good? the idea that it won't grow is kind of bleak. the industry standard for android device OS is dogshit for user privacy and a private monopoly and that's something we should want fixed. unless you like living under constant corporate surveillance.

ondoyant , 5 months ago

if you feel like rent as it currently exists even vaguely approximates the kind of model you claim you haven’t been paying attention. rent is, at its core, having other people pay for something because you own it. landlords are infamous for not paying for upkeep and repairs. the incentives behind owning property that other people live in lead to bad outcomes for people who can’t afford to own.

ondoyant , 5 months ago

rent doesn’t exist in principle, it exists in practice. and in practice, the history of rent is a history of wealth extraction. if its “perverted” today, it definitely was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. if you aren’t aware, this is a pretty basic leftist thing. if property can be held privately, those who own the property can use that ownership to extract wealth from people who need water, food, and shelter, but do not themselves own property. they can use that extracted wealth to buy more property, depriving ever more people of places in which to live their lives without paying somebody else for the privilege. and so on. thus “private property is theft”.

in any case, rent isn’t an uncontroversial example of how to fairly pay people who do things. rent is deeply political, and has been for most of modern history. it isn’t just common sense that we ought to allow people who own things to make money off that ownership, that’s a political statement, and one that should require some justification, considering its material impact on poverty, homelessness, and the accumulation of wealth.

ondoyant , 5 months ago

This is a completely useless stance when you want to figure out if rent itself is morally good or bad.

hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be. if we are only figuring out whether it would be good in principle, we’re failing to recognize whether that principle is actually founded on actual observable fact. and the observable facts say that rent has always been a potent tool for capitalists to extract wealth from people.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about this form of rent.

also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project. what does the necessity of rent for students do in practice? well, the extra costs involved in having to rent space on the market in order to go to school structurally disadvantages marginalized students. students whose parents can cover the rent are able to maximize their time learning, take advantage of more extracurriculars, or save the money they make from a job for themselves, while students who can’t have to live in their cars, take jobs to cover costs, or just not get the education they want. the scale of the problem is smaller, but the nature of the problem is the same. those who have not must give their money to those who have in order to have a place to live.

rent + limited supply + capitalistic profit maximation + corruption

lets just go through this. the supply of available property will always be limited. capitalism is defined by the private ownership of the means of production. corruption implies a system not working as intended. capitalism is intended to maximize profit, capitalism requires private ownership, resources are always limited, and rent requires private ownership. you might as well just say “private property + the limitations of a finite universe + private property + the incentives of private property is a problem”. i’m kinda joking, but not really.

And I would definitely not go as far as saying that private property in general is bad, expecially not very limited private ownership like a person owning the house they live in or part of the company they work for. Too much concentration of ownership is a problem, not the concept of ownership itself.

this is a problem of terminology. generally when socialists or other lefties are talking about private property, they’re talking about land and the economic abstractions of land ownership. socialist politics makes explicit distinctions between personal property and private property. i hear this argument alot, honestly, and if you find yourself making it as an argument against criticisms of private property more than once, i’d just recommend learning a bit more about what socialists believe, because its kind of just talking past what we think the problem is, and how we propose to solve it (democratically, instead of at the whims of rich folks).

you’ve talked about corporations a couple times, so i do wanna just say that those aren’t necessarily reasonable structures in and of themselves. it isn’t a given that the owners of a corporation should earn a profit, or that owning shares in a company is something beyond critique. there are more democratic organizational structures that don’t concentrate power towards those who have the most stuff.

ondoyant , 5 months ago

Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. […]

that isn’t my point. my point is that rent has always existed within unjust systems, and is itself a tool for those systems to accumulate wealth. if we’re taking gears out of a meatgrinder and trying to identify just how much that gear contributes to the problem of grinding people into meat, we’re missing the point. in practice, the system in which rent operates is built to deprive people of resources. but even then your framing is not agreeable to me. we aren’t talking about a machine, we’re talking about a complex socio-cultural phenomenon that developed organically over generational time spans. the idea that we could even rip the word “rent” out of the context it exists in and get anything worthwhile out of analyzing it like that is not reasonable to me. like, cultures and economies don’t have parts like an engine do, they have trends and policies and outcomes, and those things can’t reasonably be reduced to cogs in a machine.

That’s not an argument against rent, that’s an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as it’s also a thing people pay money for.

you’re doing the thing again. separating rent out from the system its built into and analyzing it only as the act of exchanging currency for housing itself. i’m trying to engage in a systemic critique, not a stubbornly isolated look at a single piece of a larger whole. the problem of students “having different means” is not the point. you have to look at the larger picture. on a population scale, how does the requirement to pay your resources into the pockets of wealthier people for basic housing affect a society?

rent is, in the case of the university student, a material obstacle towards getting an education. those who do not have money or home ownership are more likely to be denied an education as a result, and will have less access to money making opportunities in the future. the money they could have been saving for themselves goes into the pockets of richer (whiter) people, so they are less likely to be able to pass on money they make during their lifetime onto their kids. non-white people are much more likely to be renting than white people, and that is historically because non-white people were restricted from home ownership in the past, and were not able to build the kind of generational wealth that comes from home ownership. rental arrangements reinforce existing social stratifications by providing the means by which the wealthy (and white) can continue to extract resources from the poor (and brown), as they have done for generations past.

like… sharecropping was rent, and its sole purpose was to explicitly ensure that freed slaves continued to provide wealth to their former masters. the actual observable impacts of rent are to transfer wealth from people who have no resources to those with resources to spare.

[…] If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially “unlimited”, in the sense that you’d probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. […]

i was being facetious. my point was more that these factors you seem to think are separable are interlinked. just as a wake up call, there are currently more houses than people wanting to live in them. there are many multiples of houses left unoccupied for each homeless person in the United States, and the price of housing hasn’t done the thing you’re saying it would. instead, homelessness is increasing as landlords continue to raise rent, and the prospect of owning a home is becoming more and more out of reach for more and more people.

Rent doesn’t require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and that’s actually pretty common.

there is a rabbit hole i could go down about this, but i don’t really wanna. my position is relatively simple. housing is a human right. putting literally any barriers up that prevent people from getting a place to stay are wrong. imposing extra financial burdens onto the people who have the least money is wrong. rent is such a burden, even for public housing. nobody outside the people who live on the land should have ownership over the land, not wealthy folks, not the state. housing co-ops, self-governance, that is what we should strive for.

As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.

i don’t really know how to respond to this. air isn’t a socioeconomic phenomenon with a proven history of driving wealth inequality? it doesn’t interact with race and class in ways that structurally disadvantage people who are poor and brown?

And uhm … the universe is infinite as far as we know, but that’s another discussion entirely.

lol. disagree, but fine, ill be less hyperbolic. “the parts of the universe we can build houses on currently are finite.” is that better?

That might be what you’re calling personal ownership, while I’d just say that’s private ownership within healthy limits.

i’m just gonna end with this: i’m not prepared to expand upon the exact shape of why i think you’re wrong, and why i think your rebuttals fail to provide a compelling challenge to the ideas i’m trying to convey. (that is not to say there aren’t compelling challenges to socialist ideas, there certainly are.) i used to hold a very similar position. the idea of doing away with private property once seemed ludicrous to me. then i actually engaged with socialist and anarchist arguments for why they believe the things they believe, and i found them compelling. i’m not saying you will too, but i am saying that the reasons i believe these things are knowable and there’s plenty of media out there that explains it better than i ever could.

ondoyant , 5 months ago

Eh, can’t win em all. I will say, just as a parting thought, the things you’ve been saying are also ideological. Believing clean separations between ideas and concepts are possible, appealing to existing systems as a way of validating the moral rightness of other systems, even believing that there is an objective “good and truthful answer” is an ideological position. I’d say one of the more pernicious ideological positions a person can take is to believe they do not have an ideology. It makes it very difficult to think about or discuss why you believe the things you believe.

ondoyant , 7 months ago

how are being a capitalist and despising the direct product of capitalism compatible lol?

ondoyant , 7 months ago

food insecurity is a huge problem in many places today, including in some of the wealthiest countries on the world. there aren’t too many communist regimes around to blame for it anymore.

ondoyant , 7 months ago

uh huh. because our current system has definitely demonstrated that shitty companies fail, right? i don’t know how you can look at the landscape of modern corporations and come away with the thought that capitalism has in any way increased our freedom to choose, or that that really important part actually in practice weeds out shitty business practices in any way.

what companies do you like? are any of them the large multinational corporations swallowing up every speck of available market share and spiraling us towards climate apocalypse? if so, you’re wrong.

ondoyant , 7 months ago

if you don’t want to acknowledge the vast swaths of the human population for which options are strictly limited by capitalism seeking profits, i genuinely don’t know what to tell you.

food deserts, where the most impoverished people in the country are forced to eat processed foods because the nearest produce isle is miles away. the complete market domination of amazon. local repair shops being subsumed into corporate enterprise. planned obsolescence. the fact that nearly 100% of the vast variety of cereals you’re referring to are produced by like two corporations, alongside the vast majority of the products you see in grocery stores period. the fact that all the grocery stores are large corporate chains. the fact that nearly every single piece of consumer electronics you have in your home is almost certainly made from resources extracted by actual real life human slaves. nestle sucking up all the water from already drought stressed areas, and also more slave labor, this time with children. millions of tons of single use plastics funneled into our oceans. the fact that our access to life-saving medication is dependent on our wealth, rather than our need.

Overall, when I compare the system I’m living in with the alternatives that we’ve tried in the past…well, it’s very much a no-brainer.

i would encourage you to apply your brain to the situation. i understand, you find yourself in a comfortable position, where the luxuries of modern capitalism have availed themselves to you. not everybody is so lucky. capitalism is currently causing massive amounts of real human suffering. everything you buy, everything you’ve mentioned, has been made possible by widespread ecological destruction, rampant pollution, and exploitation, all of which have a cost in human lives.

the history of capitalism is also not so rosy. the East India Company commiting horrific acts of violence against the people of India, and contributed to massive famines that killed 15 million people. the slave trade being directly powered by capitalist interests. banana republics like in Guatemala, where the US government helped the United Fruit Company, now Chiquita, actively coup an elected leader and install a military dictator in his place to protect their monopoly over fruit farms. many South and Central american governments still suffer from the consequences of US backed dictators, as a direct result of the US government putting the profits of fruit companies over the lives of millions.

even if this is the best system we’ve ever devised, uh… its really not that fucking great for a vast quantity of human beings. the status quo causes immense amounts of human suffering, and will cause even more as we spiral into climate catastrophe.

ondoyant , 7 months ago

…Are a thing. They’re around. But the vast majority of people in the US (much less Europe and other developed countries, with developed public transportation) have easy access to fresh food. This…just isn’t a huge deal. It’s a public policy tweak away from being solved.

you can’t be serious about this, right? have you done any research on this at all? vast quantities of people live in food deserts in a ton of places. 23 million people. and its suspected that that figure is under-reporting.

you make a bunch of comments about being essentially fine with monopolies, which i’m going to just ignore, because if you can’t understand why entrusting so much of the things we consume to a couple megacorps is really dangerous i don’t know what to tell you. historically that doesn’t tend to lead to people having a great time, and all evidence suggests that the people working for those corporations are suffering pretty bad right now. we actually have quite a few protections in place to theoretically break up monopolies, specifically because they’re known to cause lots of suffering for people.

…In countries that are resolutely authoritarian or anarchic, and non-capitalist. I hope some day China escapes it’s authoritarian tendencies, and Africa manages to pull itself together. If they just establish functioning market economies, then the problem is solved.

i genuinely can’t believe this one lol. you are actually going to pretend that market forces aren’t the explicit driving factor of slavery in these regions. their work is directly linked into global supply chains, you bought the slave labor phone with dollars, how is that possibly something that can be solved with a market economy? the market economy is already there, and it has driven human beings into bondage. whatever. if a country is the target of rampant resource exploitation that directly enriches corporations existing under capitalism, its not non-capitalist. and even if it were true that countries that are “anarchic” or “authoritarian” weren’t capitalist by their participation in the global system of capital, the way the government got that way is not some accident of history. the exploitation started with colonial expansion, and it never stopped. rich countries pillaged these places, enriching themselves even further, and then you go and blame them for being unstable enough to continue pillaging.

Exploiting those noncapitalist countries. Shame on them. I have no problem punishing them accordingly.

is the US noncapitalist? nestle is doing this in impoverished regions of the states too. sometimes not legally, but mostly while protected by the US government.

And there just isn’t a form of government where everybody gets what they need, and nobody has proposed such a government, or a path to get to it, so it’s kinda fucking irrelevant, isn’t it?

now i know you really haven’t explored these ideas at all lol. that’s just marx. from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. he actually did propose such a government, and laid out a pretty detailed roadmap to get there. the failures of that system are well described, but nah man, there are a ton of proposed models of government based specifically about getting people what they need. that you seem not to have heard of them doesn’t really make your defense of capitalism seem well considered. wouldn’t it be nice if the government gave everybody what they needed? why shouldn’t that be our goal?

No, reality is causing massive human suffering, and capitalism is the single best tool we have to ameliorate it.

fuck that noise. the specific suffering caused by capitalism are not natural consequences of our lives as humans. there are identifiable harms caused by structures that extract resources from places without any to spare. the “developing world” is often in the state they’re in because capitalist governments took all their shit and kept all the profits.

Famines, again, were completely normal until relatively recently.

this one’s just ignorant. the frequency of crop failures in india increased drastically under British control, and there is fairly solid research to support the assertion that the extraction of wealth and food from the region by the East India Company directly led to the famines there. that is not to mention that the resource extraction capitalism has driven worldwide has made crop failures a lot more likely, and increasingly so, as we continue to ramp up our fossil fuel usage, despite knowing about the very real dangers of climate change for fucking decades.

Until you have an amazing vision and a bulletproof plan to achieve it, you’re just whining.

nah. i don’t need those things. i can criticize the many many flaws inherent to the current economic system without having a perfect alternative available for you. not that i don’t have any alternatives. again, there are so many fucking books on this stuff its insane. i know you seem to think that capitalism is not responsible for the many things capitalism is directly responsible for, but capitalists of yore fought tooth and nail to keep slaves, to work people impossible hours under unsafe conditions, to deprive people of food, water, and shelter, and they are continuing to do so to this day. the only way that’s gonna change is if we make it change. the only way we’ve improved things through the past is by directly opposing the ability for single dudes to own all the land and all the stuff and all the tools to make the stuff, and the same is true today. but you go ahead, have fun licking that boot.

ondoyant , 9 months ago

i mean, that’s still way more wealthy than most people. i don’t think i know anybody who had 28,000 buckaroos of money to burn on their child’s business venture. and the article that you linked does say that musk’s dad made around 400,000 dollars off the emerald mine, which is… still more wealth than most people will see in their lifetime. according to Errol, he sent money he made off the emerald mine and by selling his yacht to Elon and Kimbal to pay for living expenses while they were studying in the US.

ondoyant , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

its not easy to become a billionaire. but i think that its disingenuous to suggest that 28,000 bucks of dad’s money for your startup isn’t in and of itself a privilege of the wealthy. starting a business is completely out of scope for most people. it can’t make you a billionaire, but you can’t be a billionaire unless you can start a business, and you can’t do that without money to spend on that business in the vast majority of cases.

and the skill of running a business is just not impressive to me. there is no way to cultivate skill at entrepreneurship without doing entrepreneurial things, and that’s just way easier to do if you can afford to fail, and have a way of making yourself the boss of other people. most people can’t afford to fail, so they can’t take risks with quantities of money they’ll probably never accumulate in their lifetime.

ondoyant , 9 months ago

i really want to know where you got that figure, because a quick google search does not verify a median inheritance of 70k. there are some figures which report a mean inheritance of around that, but most are significantly lower, and this document suggests both that the median inheritance is around 8k across income groups, and that less that 7% of people are will receive any inheritance at all when averaged across all income groups. (the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to receive an inheritance).

and sure, most people who start a business can take out a loan, but there are a vast quantity of people who can’t take out a loan, because they have bad credit, or do not want to take out a loan they know they will never be able to repay if they fail to get their business off the ground. rich people can afford to take more risks, can afford to not spend excess money that they have on making sure they get to eat next month, and thus are conferred specific structural advantages when starting, maintaining, and growing businesses.

i’m not saying that 28k can automatically turn him into a billionaire. i’m simply pointing out the truth, that Elon Musk did, in fact, benefit from structural advantages which cleared barriers to entry that the vast majority of people do not have the resources to bypass.

i get that people would really like it if he was some rags to riches story about a poor kid ascending up the ladder, but no. it isn’t true about musk, and it isn’t true about most billionaires. their wealth is unprecedented, sure, and they have leveraged their resources beyond what most people can conceive, but it bears repeating. statistically, most of the monstrously wealthy started out wealthy, had access to resources that the average person will never have from the start, and were only in a position to grow their wealth because they had money to burn on things other than food, shelter, and physical health.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

engineering types do seem to fall off the conservatism cliff more frequently than other science-adjacent professions. so do surgeons, for some reason? at least from what i’ve observed. i think something about high performance, high pay jobs that require specialized education can make a person more vulnerable to brain worms.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i like the pun, good job.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i really don’t like this attitude, and i see this it pop up around here fairly frequently. its kind of elitist? classist? i’ll try to articulate myself here, though its not like… directly aimed at you, so try not to take it personally.

computer skills are just like being illiterate, but not in the way you’re presenting. if somebody grows up to adulthood and they are illiterate, that isn’t some sort of personal failing, its an indication that the people responsible for this person’s care neglected their obligation to properly educate their child, or did not have the resources to provide such an education, because nearly everybody can become literate if somebody teaches them. the reality is that every single person on earth comes into this world without the ability to read, write, use computers, or do fucking anything at all, and its the responsibility of the people who do know these things to be open and kind and helpful so that they can learn. did you have the option to take computer skills classes in school? maybe? in a lot of places, no. did you come into technology effortlessly good at everything? probably not. lots of people aren’t given the opportunity to hone these skills, or aren’t given motivation to pursue them for themselves.

it’s a problem in tech spaces. there is this subset of tech dudes who got in early and have made this weird, toxic culture of competition and exclusion that makes pursuing these skills actively difficult for newcomers. no. open source tech is for everybody. computer skills are for everybody. respond kindly and with understanding to those who do not already know these things, please. as much as it seems obvious or natural, it really really isn’t. people need to be taught this stuff most of the time. i don’t mean to be hostile, its just… the comparison to being illiterate is absurd to me, even if it was just a joke. when have you ever met a person who’s illiterate who hasn’t been systematically let down by their educators??? have you ever met somebody who’s illiterate? they aren’t that way because they’re stupid, or don’t want to learn, its usually something that happens to people who have been profoundly neglected by the systems supposed to protect them, who are poor, disabled, or otherwise marginalized. the stigmatization of illiteracy is cruel to people who have already been deeply wronged, denied full access to language and our vast inheritance of knowledge by systems and people which find it inconvenient to teach them.

i sorta agree with you, it’s a bummer that people don’t have these skills, that so many don’t have a strong grasp of how the machines that are so important to their lives even work. but that isn’t their fault, it isn’t their responsibility, and our response should be kind and accommodating. it should be a call to improve public education and provide resources to expand access to this knowledge, to build open source and demystify what has been mystified. that’s part of why there are so many free educational resources for coding online. because this is a field of study that is not being taught to students by default, as it rightly should be.

i don’t mean to go off on you specifically. lots of people don’t think very deeply about this, you haven’t committed a social justice crime or anything. but this is not a “people are dumb” problem. its an injustice. its a failure that we should do everything in our power to correct.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i’ve experienced the same thing, but tech support workers encounter those kinds of people more frequently because they’re the ones who need help the most frequently. the people who can figure it out on their own don’t seek out tech support.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

yeah, i get the sentiment for sure. i’ve done tech support work. i just don’t agree. if so many people aren’t acquiring tech literacy by osmosis, it obviously is something worth teaching. people can teach themselves how to read, but before public schooling reading was a privileged skill. what we have now is… vaguely similar? its different, because UI design can be more or less user friendly and specific applications can be skillsets of their own, but if enough people aren’t acquiring the skill by exposure, that means something on its own.

it can mean that there are just a bunch of incurious people walking around, or we could not make judgements like that about people, and recognize that some people really don’t seem to be getting it, and take steps to ensure they do.

tech support can make misanthropes of us all, but it isn’t because these people are stupid or incurious, its because your job is dependent on people getting frustrated or confused enough to ask for help. the job filters for customers who can’t figure it out, and at a work setting every moment you haven’t fixed their problem is wasted time from their perspective. that they don’t want to be taught a new skill in that context is reasonable, even if its deeply frustrating.

its why i think literacy is a good comparison. some people find it fairly intuitive, find joy in reading, and grow up practicing that skill , but plenty of people don’t, and in large part if they aren’t directed to learn it they never acquire the skill, because the friction in day to day life is never large enough to motivate them to act.

ondoyant , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

yeah i get that perspective. the assumption that people are dumb or incurious because they don’t find computer tech interesting is weird to me. like, just generally assume that people have rich inner lives, skills, hobbies, and interests, even if you don’t share those interests.

i do think tech literacy should be part of school curricula, though. its a pretty useful skill no matter what thing you like doing. tech literacy has made so many of my other interests more accessible to me.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

the rise of the ad blocker blocker blockers begins.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...

ondoyant , 10 months ago

sure. i’ll bite. how about you tell me exactly what opinions have gotten you branded in this way? please. tell me what exactly are the kinds of things you say that get other people to call you a nazi.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

there are ways of running macOS on non-Apple hardware, but it requires a fair bit of tech savvy, and you usually need to build your own machine. not sure how easy it is nowadays, but i ran a macOS desktop on a PC for years without many issues.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

its not an algorithm. its a legal box made of people who make choices, and we can make moral judgements about those choices.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

doesn't AGPL give some ability to verify? i'm pretty sure it stipulates that you have to distribute the code a network server is being run with. it would at least let people know if an instance has taken steps to keep data it shouldn't be keeping.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

AGPL is not GPL. server side distribution isn't considered distribution under GPL, but AGPL was made to close that loophole.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i guess? we're talking about copyleft licenses though. GDPR might be fuzzier because technically you don't have an account with any instances your account is federated with (i assume), but AGPL is the license for the federated service itself. if they don't provide their code, they are violating the terms of the license. that opens them up to litigation i think. i don't know though, legal shit is very much not my wheelhouse.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

imma push back against that just a little bit. the shape of ui elements, what sort of interactions a platform allows a person to make, are kinda arbitrary, and putting deliberate thought into how they are laid out is important. in real life social interactions, there is functionally no analogue for a like or dislike button. there are fully cogent arguments for not including "the power of users to be negative" that don't rely on suppression of speech or whatever, because that power is kinda exclusive to online platforms to begin with, and can allow larger groups to suppress the visibility of people they don't like. "being negative" in a social context is a tricky idea to pin down, and there are a lot of real life social contexts where "being negative" would be seen as anti-social.

in any case, a downvote is sorta equivalent to shouting somebody down, or interrupting somebody who's talking. depending on how its implemented, it might actually be a pretty potent tool as suppressing discussion. in certain contexts it might be useful, but any utility it provides is necessarily less than articulating why you disagree with somebody with a comment.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

maybe arbitrary isn't the right word. i'm not saying it isn't important, or that companies don't manipulate the UI to encourage certain behaviors. i'm saying that elements of the UI have no intrinsic, obvious meaning. a downvote is socially constructed, its purpose is ambiguous, and its impact on our free speech is not a self-evident. its impact on a platform is complex, multifaceted, and difficult to describe fully.

you may think that the removal of a downvote is an obvious attack on free expression, but, again, there are arguments against features like the downvote which do not rely on greed or a desire to repress. downvotes were invented by these companies, the social act of downvoting somebody became possible alongside the UIs that implemented it, and the utility and role of that UI feature exists within its context. downvoting is not a natural feature of human communication, its like a social prosthetic, an ability which did not exist before it was created for us.

its kinda like a handshake. we all know what a handshake means, right? but no, not really. if you went elsewhere in the world, it might mean something very different, or nothing at all. even within our culture, some people might think its really important to have a firm handshake, and other people might not care. some people might find it gross. some people might refuse to shake the hands of certain kinds of people. some people don't have hands to shake. there is, in some sense, a social role to the handshake. it's a greeting, or an agreement, or a sign of respect. but pinning down exactly what it means is really difficult, because its value and social role are constructed by the society in which they operate, and the people who use it.

i'm not saying these companies aren't attempting to alter their platform to influence human behavior. they are doing that. but, frankly, the level of actual fine grained control they have over how people socially construct their UI features is nowhere near absolute, or even particularly logical. they may think that removing UI features, altering how they work, will lead to specific outcomes, but as we have seen with things like Twitter's verification, how users will interpret and socially construct those features is not fully under Twitter's control. the culture of a website is not the UI implementation, its how people decide to use that implementation. and for downvotes, we know it isn't an unalloyed good. because downvotes can do different things on different platforms, the actual utility being removed really has to be determined from the specific implementation we're talking about, but in most implementations, downvotes affect discoverability. highly downvoted topics may be deprioritized, put at the bottom of a thread, something like that. maybe it increases visibility, if a platform feels that people should see what other people seem to hate alot. the impact a downvote has on a discussion is, therefore, really not just a binary good or bad, its complex. if downvotes increase visibility, you may be encouraging attention seekers to behave poorly on purpose. if downvotes decrease visibility, you might be facilitating the ability for groups of users to censor other user's opinions. if they are subtracted from upvotes and represented with a single number, thats different than if the proportion of upvotes and downvotes is made visible to the user. if your total quantity of upvotes and downvotes affects what abilities you have on the platform, different users may be stratified into enforced social castes by the platform's code.

i'm not saying that corporations are doing a good job, i'm saying that we cannot take at face value the goodness or badness of any particular UI feature, and cannot assume that these companies are removing or adding features specifically for the goal of reducing free expression, because the relationship between profit and freedom of speech is not a simple one. lots of online social media platforms are not currently profitable. reddit isn't. twitch isn't. twitter isn't. so they don't necessarily know what changes they have to make in order to become profitable, they're just doing what they think will make them profitable.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i try to push back against this notion when i see it: misanthropy is not the proper response here. people aren't sheep, they aren't stupid, they just aren't living in the same context as we are. for a lot of people (and a lot of older people especially), the politics of the internet are a black box, not because they're too stupid to comprehend this stuff, but because its simply out of scope for what they want to achieve online. there's tons of things to care about, and while the internet is a pretty important thing to care about in modern life in my opinion, lots of people simply don't live enough of their lives online to give a shit.

i dunno, i just get kinda pissed off with the whole "sheeple" bullshit. not everybody has your priorities, and not everybody knows what you know. that doesn't make them bad people, or stupid people, or subservient people, it just makes them people.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

like, maybe that's true, but i'm unsure if we have enough data to back that up as the main explanation for why people are hesitant to changing platforms, or if they are. maybe people have been brainwashed into staying on Facebook or whatever else, or maybe it was the first of its kind, and all its competition has been subsumed into it by monopolistic business practices, and people haven't had any alternatives for a long time. maybe institutions and systems are very difficult to stop once they get going.

i dunno, i'm really just not convinced by arguments like this. its taken quite a bit of time for our understanding of social media and its impact to become evident, and movements like the fediverse are building up steam for a reason. its seems more likely to me that you and i are simply early to the party.

my position isn't "we are forcing normal people to understand scary programming things". that would imply i think that people can't understand this stuff. its "we are engaged in communities where the structure and function of internet infrastructure is a topic of concern, and most people aren't". they aren't being exposed to challenges to corporate infrastructure. they aren't engaging with critiques of for-profit industry. but that is changing. people are more aware of the ills of social media platforms today than five years ago. hopefully, that trend will continue. i think that the only problem really is that more people don't know there are other options.

ondoyant , 10 months ago

i'm not sure if ActivityPub is copyleft or not. meta might be able to build proprietary features on top of it if the license isn't viral.

ondoyant , 11 months ago

"Protests don't work" is a weird take on this. No political action is an unmitigated success, movements take time to build momentum. I dunno, try to cool it with the misanthropy. This has gotten a ton of media coverage, built the legitimacy of the fediverse, and forced Reddit to act to break a strike. Not to mention that every step of enshittification makes arguments against corporate controlled social media more compelling in the long term.

ondoyant , 11 months ago

I'm just waiting until these models get completely unraveled by training on output. The more people use generative AI to make stuff online, the more useless the internet is as a data source.

ondoyant , 11 months ago

I think I'm just not that worried about making it easy for "most people" right now. The nature of open source projects means that enthusiastic users can and do contribute to infrastructure, and as more people come along, more people will start working on making things better. There's a reason reddit decided to fuck over third party API calls, and its because open source projects became better than their own shit, and they apparently think that they're losing potential money because of it. Projects like Apollo would not be getting cut off if they weren't seen as a threat to reddit's business model. If lemmy survives, the breadth and depth of community driven infrastructure will outpace reddit eventually. If it doesn't, well... then somebody will try something else. No biggie. Cool shit takes time to build.