chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

1,231

Joined

2 yr. ago

Crazy how the response is to completely gaslight you about what the real issue is

I upvoted because I'm generally excited by the idea of software that lets you interact with different social media via one interface. Idk if the project itself is good but it seems like a neat idea.

seems plausible it could be a legal concern about being sued for defamation

I remember seeing a teenage girl in a small food store I go to address the guy behind the counter as ‘human’. “Thanks, human.” Stuff like that. I think she was just doing a bit or something but I thought it was strange.

My ex would say this type of shit to people she didn't know, I'd say it was half "doing a bit", and half she is just a strange person.

They said it's "false" that the killer was motivated by something else. It's not false, it's unknown, because there isn't enough information to actually be confident about that. People trying to give a misleading sense of their motives to throw investigations off when committing crimes is something that happens. If you think there is enough information, that's more of an opinion than a fact.

I got a bit of harassment from hexbear users when I started using Lemmy, haven't in a while now though, I have blocked around 30 of them and instance block

Policy is similar too, they want civil unrest and violent overthrow of current governments

There is an instance block feature you can use in the settings as a user, that seems to work pretty well for not seeing hexbear stuff

No, because "caring about commoners" and "shitting on the rich" are not actually the same objective. People are happy about it because it feels good to get revenge or for people who treat others unfairly to be punished, but sating popular bloodthirst isn't necessarily aligned with actually making society a better place. "Kill the bad people and the problems will be fixed" is historically very much a famous last words kind of sentiment.

That doesn't mean it's the truth

I have a userscript that sets display = 'none' for urls matching reddit to remind myself to stay off reddit for a while. I adjusted it a little to support blocking only specific subreddits like you seem to want to do, maybe it will be useful to someone: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/520007-disableredditbysub

Isn't something like this why the price of oil futures went negative that one time? One guy booked all of the oil tankers so it was impossible to collect physically, and so people had to pay money for the oil to be taken off their hands

Sounds right, but again with the caveat, what are they being caught for? Being a healthcare executive at all? Some vaguely defined moral threshhold? What is it they are being taught to fear, and how disconnected is that from any actual intention? Like beating a dog to try to get it to stop destroying your furniture. And then consider that certain punishment for them isn't actually realistic unless it's the government imposing it. Vigilantes can't get them all or probably even many of them.

The idea that punishment works is the concept behind our entire justice system

It's one of the concepts, and that's a big part of why we have so much evidence against it.

I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).

The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality, and this is backed by both research into individual behavior and collective behavior.

I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over?

Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.

so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.

It's not that it's necessarily a downside (though it probably is because people like that are potentially even worse to be ruled by), but you said there's a mechanism for coercion by assassination to work here. This is why there won't be; you will just get harder corpos.

That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.

It's necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation, executives are judged shallowly, there is no incentive to do anything except to quit and be replaced by someone who has more of a gangsterish disposition.

If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.

...Or they could go the way of prison gang status, where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power. That seems way more likely to me than CEOs suddenly growing a fear based conscience and throwing profits/shareholders under the bus and somehow still being allowed to remain in their positions.

And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused, which doesn't seem likely either; rationality and being a killer tend to not usually go together, even if this incident seems like an outlier just from its most obvious narrative.

Even if they tried I don't think they have the leverage to make that work. What games or publishers are big enough that such a move would go worse for Twitch than it would for them? Most of the time indie games make for better content anyway. Twitch could just ban games that don't include an unconditional free streaming license in their terms of service and not lose much of any popularity, while the game publishers trying to extort them would absolutely lose popularity.

Each server would likely have to utilize a payment service.

Yeah but that would mean each server has to take custody of funds, have their own individual contractual agreements with game companies, handle refunds, bear all the legal and tax burdens of this, and get people to trust they won't scam them. It's just too much of a burden, these are all things that benefit heavily from centralization and economies of scale, due to the legalistic nature of payments. You would end up with one dominant instance and unused federation, if there was even anyone willing to deal with all that stuff to begin with.

I feel like you could solve this stuff pretty well with crypto, having payment go directly to the game devs, and a no refund policy or something to simplify things, but crypto is too hated so that wouldn't work right now.

hm that is a good point