I definitely don't think this is true. That's the whole "eternal September" thing.
I mean, it was my literal experience as a user. And it wasn't just September, the first wave was June when high schoolers started summer break and spent considerable time online, and then the second wave in September with college kids. Honestly the second wave wasn't as bad, as the college kids were using their university's connection and they usually had some idea that if they went too far there might be consequences. Whereas the summer break latchkey high school kids were never that worried about any consequences.
I'm mostly talking about the volunteer internet. I don't have any active accounts on commercial social media, even for business things.
I know, but that's part of my point. The things that make online places feel safe, welcoming, and worthwhile are the same regardless if volunteer or commercial. I absolutely loved 2007 - 2012 early Twitter - it actually felt like the best of my old BBS/Usenet days but with much better scope. But I haven't regularly been on there since 2016-ish, and completely left Reddit in July of last year (despite having had an account since 2009). For me the volunteer and federated social media has the best shot at being a "good" place, but I don't have a philosophical objections to seeing commercial social media become less horrible, and in terms of understood and agreed upon social contract, I think approaching both with the same attitude should be encouraged.
We don't need the commercial social media to fail for us to succeed, we need to change how people think about how they participate in online spaces and how those spaces should be managed and by whom.
In that case, I think the whole question is moot. The umbrella term of thingamawidget is not both modular and versatile, but its constituent parts are individually. "The thingamawidget with versatile software and modular hardware is…" would then be the more accurate description.
Otherwise it's like describing a brownie as wet and bitter because the egg is wet and the raw cocoa is bitter.
"In tonight’s tale of terror, we follow a man with a mission—a mission to get rid of the mysterious figure known as Universal Monk.
Our brave hero thinks he’s just battling a keyboard warrior on the interwebs, but after a little trip, he’ll learn that hunting sea lions isn’t as easy as he thought.
Someone needs to go outside and touch all the grass.
The old-school internet had a strong social contract. There are little remnants surviving, that seem hilarious and naive in the modern day, but for the most part the modern internet has been taken over by commercial villains to such an extreme degree that a lot of the norms that held it together during the golden age are just forgotten by now.
So, I've been online in some form or another since the late '80s - back in the old BBS, dial-up, and Usenet days. I think there's actually different factors at play.
To start with, Usenet was often just as toxic as any current social media/forum site. The same percentage of trolls, bad actors, etc. That really hasn't increased or decreased in my online lifetime. The only real difference was the absolute power wielded by a BBS or server admin, and that power was exercised capriciously for both good and bad. Because keeping these things up and running was a commitment, the people making the decisions were often the ones directly keeping servers online and modem banks up and running. Agree or disagree with the admins, you couldn't deny they were creating spaces for the rest of us to interact.
Then we started to get the first web based news sites with a social aspect (Slashdot/Fark/Digg/etc). And generally there wasn't just one person making decisions and if they wanted to make any money they had to not scare off advertisers, so that started making things different (again for good and for bad). It was teams of people keeping things going and moderation was often a separate job. Back in the day I remember on multiple occasions a moderator making one call and then a site owner overruling them. It was at this time the view on moderation really began to change.
Nowadays giant mega corps run the social media sites and manage the advertising themselves so they're answerable to no one other than psychotic billionaires, faceless stockholders and executive tech bros with a lot of hubris. Moderation is often led by algorithmic detection and then maybe a human. Appeals often just disappear into a void. It has all become an unfeeling, uncaring technocracy where no one is held accountable other than an occasional user, and never the corporation, execs, or owners.
Like yourself, not sure how to fix it, but splitting the tech companies apart from their advertising divisions would be step one. Probably would be helpful to require social media companies to be standalone businesses. Would at least be easier to hold them accountable. And maybe require that they be operated as nonprofits? To help disincentivize the kind of behavior we've got now.
Is something in that brain of yours broken today? We weren't talking about changing your mind, we were talking about your long and well-documented history of trolling behavior. That ring any bells?
Also, did you just discover "lol" because you've been using it overtime all day. Something else to add in the creepy and weird column I suppose.
You claimed that I did but could offer no proof. Not sure how lying is fun, at least for anyone but you I suppose.
As for the troll bit - you stop acting like one, and I'll consider it. Doesn't look very likely though. https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&actionType=ModRemoveComment&userId=9454261 I mean there's a clear and undeniable pattern of behavior, but if you're willing to turn over a new leaf, we can see what happens.
Right, that's why we're this deep in a thread still talking. Come on - you said you were glad I finally admitted you weren't a bot, and I asked for a link of whenever I might have claimed you were one. Or are you just admitting to more lying and trolling now?
Right. So the modlog is always right when it's convenient for you, but subject to shady shenanigans when it isn't? Interesting.
And please link to whenever I've called you a bot. Just one example. Someone who engages in trolling, spam, and dishonesty? Sure. But never said you were a bot. I understand you just fine.
What was the "inappropriate" DM? And what cyberstalking communities? And what fan fiction? Nothing that you're saying is correct. lol\
The one you got banned for. You'd know better than the rest of us. And you know what I'm talking about - your behavior is now getting creepy and weird.
How would I take pride in trolling if I don't believe I'm trolling? I believe what post. And I post what I think is interesting. If you get mad about it, that's not my problem, friend. Thank you! :)
"I believe what post" - yeah, bots are actually better at this than you are. Fewer spelling/grammar mistakes, that's for sure.
I mean, you obviously take pride in your acts of trolling despite disavowing that you're trolling. So that all tracks.
I never said it matters, I was just pointing to documented proof of your trolling behavior.
Inappropriate DMs and creating creepy cyberstalking communities where you write fan fiction about us all kind of seems to fit what the modlog describes.
Including the dubvee one a lot of people got despite never posting/commenting there and that you've talked about before.
And you implied that whoever caused the ban would be the same person who dropped a photo of it into the conversation. Not hard to see what you were saying. Or was that just more of your self-described "crappy writing"?
That's like saying you shouldn't call out antivax lies because it only attracts attention to them. Calling out BS doesn't make the BS more attractive or accepted.
So now you're just going straight into full delusion? You did notice I'm on .ee and not .ca right? And with as fervently as you've linked to your mentions in the modlog, everyone is supposed to believe you weren't aware of a full community ban? (Btw, communities don't notify you of bans or any mod actions, so not even sure why you think that's a thing?)
There's no real algorithm here - how are we "feeding" anything? Failure to check the pollution of shared communal spaces leads to tragedy of the commons and benefits nothing. It's why I also don't block them.
I've been online since the Usenet and BBS days, "don't feed the trolls" sounds great but never actually does anything except cede shared spaces to the trolls.
And for the rest of it, a troll is someone who engages in trolling, e.g. concern trolling, lack of civility, sealioning, spam, violating community rules. So basically your entire resume as it were
Which of us has had comments and posts removed for trolling/lack of civility? Which of us has had a community ban for same? Or inappropriate DMs? I mean you've left quite the trail behind you.
geekwithsoul @ geekwithsoul @lemm.ee Posts 27Comments 596Joined 2 yr. ago
I mean, it was my literal experience as a user. And it wasn't just September, the first wave was June when high schoolers started summer break and spent considerable time online, and then the second wave in September with college kids. Honestly the second wave wasn't as bad, as the college kids were using their university's connection and they usually had some idea that if they went too far there might be consequences. Whereas the summer break latchkey high school kids were never that worried about any consequences.
I know, but that's part of my point. The things that make online places feel safe, welcoming, and worthwhile are the same regardless if volunteer or commercial. I absolutely loved 2007 - 2012 early Twitter - it actually felt like the best of my old BBS/Usenet days but with much better scope. But I haven't regularly been on there since 2016-ish, and completely left Reddit in July of last year (despite having had an account since 2009). For me the volunteer and federated social media has the best shot at being a "good" place, but I don't have a philosophical objections to seeing commercial social media become less horrible, and in terms of understood and agreed upon social contract, I think approaching both with the same attitude should be encouraged.
We don't need the commercial social media to fail for us to succeed, we need to change how people think about how they participate in online spaces and how those spaces should be managed and by whom.