Why is Linux so frustrating for some people?
The following sums up my experience with Linux thus far: "It's never been easier for the newb to jump right in, but heavens help them if they ever stray from the straight path".
There's been a lot of effort to make things easier for a newb (used to Windows and all that shit) to do what they need to do in most cases. There's been all sorts of GUI-based stuff that means for the 'average' user, there's really no need for them to interact with the command line. That's all well and good until you need to do something that wasn't accounted for by the devs or contributors.
All of a sudden, you'd have not only to use the command line, you may also have to consult one of the following:
- Well-meaning, easy to understand, but ultimately unhelpfully shallow help pages (looking at you, Libre Office), or the opposite: deep, dense, and confusing (Arch) Wiki pages.
- One of the myriads of forum pages each telling the user to RTFM, "program the damned thing yourself", "go back to Windows", all of the above, or something else that delivers the same unhelpful message.
- Ultra-dense and technical man pages of a command that might possibly be of help.
And that's already assuming you've got a good idea of what the problem was, or what it is that you are to do. Trouble-shooting is another thing entirely. While it's true that Linux has tons of ways to make troubleshooting a lot easier, such as logs, reading through them is a skill a lot of us don't have, and can't be expected of some newb coming from Windows.
To be fair to Linux though, 90% of the time, things are well and good. 9% of the time, there's a problem here and there, but you're able to resolve it with a little bit of (online) help, despite how aggravating some of that "help" might be. 1% of the time, however, Linux will really test your patience, tolerance, and overall character.
Unfortunately, it's that 10% that gives Linux its "hard to use" reputation, and the 1% gives enough scary stories for people to share.
My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account. Whatever it is that we enjoy online, in places such as Lemmy, Reddit, or whatever, is besides the point.
I get the appeal of trying to sweep them under the rug. It unquestionably makes things easier, like not needing to accommodate those in wheelchairs makes things easier. But must we take the easy road?
I'd say it's not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.
I think I've already said my piece here, and as you've said: "Truthfully, I have no care as to what kind of views you hold. There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion."
There is no value proposition in trying to persuade you. That is not the value of discussion.
In most cases, yeah, I'd agree. In this particular case, it can be argued one way or the other. Someone can see us and say "megane-kun is trying to convince me not to sell my account," for example. Personally, I agree with you on that one point in this instance. I think we're just two people exchanging views on a certain question. But in certain cases, where persuasion leads to action, it's different. And this is actually pretty much intertwined to the topic at hand. It is this potential for action that makes persuasion valuable in certain cases.
I took that you already suggested that some people just aren’t capable of understanding the seperation, and I acknowledged that as being a real, possible scenario. But I also questioned how far you can really go by babysitting them. At some point you have to accept the lost cause, no?
I'm arguing that, no, in certain instances, and in the cases that are most relevant to the question of selling one's account, that there are people at work in making this separation really hard. That the job of a troll farm, the most likely buyer of one's account, is to make that distinction be very hard for community moderators and ordinary people alike (even more so for the latter), and the effort to make the distinction incredibly hard as to give up on it, or make sloppy shortcuts (account age, karma, etc). Why do all this? To influence others to do certain things, be it in politics (voting for one person over the other), or in advertising (buying one product that you don't need).
Personally, however, I agree. Some people can't just be helped, and that it's unfortunate that this kind of people could be a majority. However, since I know with certain confidence, that there are bad actors at play that working overtime such that the likes of us would fail, always, I have to just be a little more understanding, and be aware that I myself can fall victim to such machinations.
I suppose the crux of this discussion is this: I am arguing that selling my account helps the disinformation machine, you're arguing that it doesn't matter, that the responsibility lies in the person imbibing information.
If that's the case (and that I'm understanding you properly), well, personally speaking, I see no reason why it can't be both: be responsible in imbibing information, but be aware that there are bad actors at play (and don't lend these bad actors a hand).
No need to apologize. Tone has no bearing on the content you are delivering.
Thank you! It's really been a breath of fresh air to be able to assume that the person I'm talking to is arguing in good faith.
Now, to address your points.
As far as I've understood Lemmy and how federation works, moderators and admins are two separate things, with their own separate responsibilities (and hopefully) with their own separate (albeit overlapping) mechanisms and toolsets for content moderation. But that's mostly besides your point which is "it is free labour like clearing your own laneway of snow is free labour." I think we're on the same page there. The dynamics are a little bit different here, but I would argue that the challenges are still similar enough.
Another point that I would like to briefly mention here is the incentives one might have to moderate a community here, or in Reddit. It's the desire to cultivate a community of like-minded people.
For all the faults of Reddit has, I think its greatest edge (and greatest weakness, in other respects, in my opinion) is that it provides a 'one-stop-shop' for people to find a community of like-minded people. That by funneling a huge amount of people into one place, it makes it easier to find other people interested in, for example: prostitution in late medieval Constantinople (a facetious example, but I hope that illustrates my point well enough). It's easier to find people to establish a community for really niche subjects when you've a lot of people in one place. This also increases the desire to nurture that community, even to the point of withstanding abuse, not just from users, but also from admins and whoever else.
A point that I have probably not addressed well enough in my previous reply is the challenges of content moderation everywhere (from small forums, to Reddit, to Lemmy). I hope you'll agree with me that it is a huge challenge especially in places with a large amount of activity. Sifting through each report, making sure that you're making the best judgement call for each case, is not an easy task.
This brings me to your next point, which I admit I've sidestepped a bit: "The “trustworthiness” of the account has no bearing on the “trustworthiness” of the message." I agree, in principle, but in practice? I doubt it. A good portion of the report I've linked earlier has described the amount of work that goes into making a fake account trustworthy. Even if we assume that moderators scrutinize every report, checking the account's activity history, and even (in the case of FB), going through the trouble of cross-checking friends and mutual friends, it would be a difficult job separating fake accounts, from legitimate, albeit similar-looking ones. Furthermore, the time and effort that would go into this would, assuming limited time and resources—especially if we're talking about volunteer community moderators, detract from other moderation tasks that need attention as well. Given a glut of accounts for sale, it would be far easier for troll farm operators to just buy more accounts, disposing of "exposed ones" as they go.
I do hope I've addressed your points satisfactorily. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you thus far.
Good point regarding usernames. I've forgotten about that.
But if someone is foolish enough to give their free labour for Reddit’s gain, let them work like dogs. Why should anyone else care?
I hate to say this, but are you willing to extend this reasoning to moderators here in Lemmy? They're also giving their free labor here, right? Or is it different because "no corporation gains" here?
I've never been a moderator over there, nor here, but I've gotten a close look at what it entails more than a handful of years ago, in a relatively small forum. The most surprising thing for me is that even there, content moderation already is a headache, and a thankless one at that. Whatever that could make that job a little bit easier will be used. Karma points and account age are, as I've pointed out earlier, used as a tool to make one's job as a moderator easier. Do I think it's warranted? No, personally, no. The best way to deal with each report, each person, is on a case-to-case basis. But when you're swamped with a lot of reports and untrustworthy people (to the point that the starting point is any one person being untrustworthy), I would understand why anyone would take a little shortcut here and there.
My argument against selling accounts is never really focused on Reddit, but I called it out by name because of its size and influence.
For a bit of a background, I am Filipino, living in the Philippines which has become a testing ground for the weapons of mass disinformation during the last few national elections. The report Architects of Networked Disinformation focused on Facebook, which is where most of the troll farms have operated on. However, I have no reason to believe that the same techniques can't be applied to places such as Reddit (or even here in Lemmy). Furthermore, while focus during the 2022 national elections have also been on Facebook, there is reason to believe that some activity has also happened elsewhere, particularly Reddit where supporters of Leni Robredo (who ended up second in the race) have congregated to avoid the toxicity that is Facebook.
So, does mean I'm already a veteran when it comes to facing disinformation? No, hell no. However, my own personal experience, albeit colored through personal biases, has at the very least given me at least one insight: misinformation is insidious and isn't as obvious as one might mock it as. It isn't as simple as "Vote for XYZ, because he will bring us to a new golden age, make ABC great again!" It isn't always, in your own words: "a simple logic exercise." While it's easy to point out and laugh at the failures, it's just that: failures. To quote from a section that highlights the experiences of community-level fake account operators:
They mention that their ultimate failure as fake account operators on Facebook is when they are called out as a fake account (“That’s game over! That usually shuts us up”).
Yes, of course. It's considered a failure to be outed as a fake account operator. It would be "a simple logic exercise", to extend this reasoning to why a fake account operator would be a lot more careful and be more subtle in their operations, perhaps even utilizing the best (and worst) of human psychology and sociology to use our very own intellect, feelings, and connections against us. This exercise is left for the reader.
Now, all of the wall of text you've hopefully endured thus far, leads to one point, which I've already alluded to in my earlier reply: Selling accounts feeds the misinformation machine. I cannot, in good conscience, allow myself to feed with my own hand this very machine that has done a lot of damage to countries all over.
My apologies if I have been combative in my tone, but I hope you understand that it's coming from a place of .... trauma, I guess?
So long as you're aware of the dangers of spreading the word, yeah, why not?
I've gotten shadow-banned because of what I did, but no regrets.
You said "promo," not "porno," right?
I haven't been going there since last month (June 12). Since then, I've only gone to check on whether or not any posts or replies have resurfaced (undeleted by admins or otherwise).
Last night, however, I commented to inform people about the state of Lemmy apps in an effort to get one or two people on the fence to switch over.
Other than that, I no longer use my account.
I would have gone straight to that if I also ignored the ethics of it all, lol!
I'm setting aside the question of whether it is illegal, but I think it is legally murky anyways.
The more interesting question is whether or not it is ethical to sell one's Reddit account.
I, for one, won't be selling mine. Why?
I think selling accounts contribute to the problem of trust in sites such as Reddit and Lemmy. Why would anyone buy a Reddit account anyways? To appear trustworthy, right? Because karma points and account age has been used as a proxy measure for an account's trustworthiness. An old account, with a fair amount of karma points is a valuable thing for misinformation and/or campaigns. Even if I hate Reddit to the point of wanting to see them literally burn, I still can't support misinformation and advertisements.
Another thing to consider is giving up control of your account. I'm one of those who scrubbed and deleted my Reddit posts and comments. Selling my accounts would mean that if Reddit undeletes my posts and comments, I no longer can do anything about it. Worse, someone else is in control. That's no good for me.
Seems like some follow-up work is in order. I've seen at least one person not see the point (that it's on Lemmy). They failed their knowledge check (arcana, or history? IDK)! Maybe someone can lend them some bardic inspiration?
Well, it wasn't the best choice on laptop that is already quite old and underpowered. I didn't know back then, but there are lightweight Linux distros that would have served me better.
The laptop only had 4GB of RAM. I forgot about its processor, but it was decent for 2007. Even then, it was able to run, without much trouble, so long as you don't do much. Watch the CPU and memory usage and it's mostly ok.
When my last PC died around 2019, I had to use a spare, hand-me-down laptop that could barely run windows 7. I was already exposed to Linux back then, and that I was counting on its reputation to run on a potato. I installed Ubuntu (kind of a bad choice, perhaps) on that ancient laptop and it ran surprisingly well! I didn't look back at that point, even after that laptop died (of old age) and I got a new PC.
Thanks to you too as well. I've also felt uneasy about it and your question has given me a chance to finally ask about it.
Also, your username matches you.
Hey, thanks for this. I'm Filipino but I've got no idea about that.
Thanks for that clarification.
However, I'm still not quite sure how they came up with the "We're the top
<insert number here>
most powerful countries" claim, since it has always been so arrogant to me.Also, how do they even choose which countries would be included in the club? For example, would Indonesia or the Philippines be part of a hypothetical G50? Why?
Thanks for that clarification.
However, I'm still not quite sure how they came up with the "We're the top
<insert number here>
most powerful countries" claim, since it has always been so arrogant to me.Also, how do they even choose which countries would be included in the club? For example, would Indonesia or the Philippines be part of a hypothetical G50? Why?
I've always understood it as "Group of X most powerful and influential countries"
So, G7 means the "top seven" and G20 means the "top twenty". What their criteria for determining the ranking, I don't know.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
NES, with just a handful of games at the start. Neighbor kids started passing around those knock-off cartridges containing a few games (usually titled 100-in-1 or 1000-in-1), as well as other games ("Super Mario 4", for example, which I found out decades later as just a ROM hack of a relatively unknown nintentdo game).
What I just said, on the whole, isn't exclusive to Linux and can be applied to Windows as well (maybe except the "go back to Windows" mantra, and possibly the RTFM culture of Linux—but then again, the general refrain of LMGTFY is common enough for one to argue that a similar complaint exists in Windows as well).
Having to fall back to the command-line, however, is generally a rare experience in Windows. I personally never have had any need to. However, that's mostly because I was never a power user in Windows, and I've never had any experience like having to fix messed-up partitions. Windows have its own set of problems too, like the registry system.
Whatever my complaints about Linux might be, it doesn't make Windows any better. I am still daily-driving Linux for a reason (or several).
The 90%, 10% and 1% thing I said at the end applies to Windows as well. It is a general rule of thumb I've mentioned to highlight that, the scary things oft-talked about Linux are a small percentage of what a user might encounter. And it's even less, probably non-existent, if you stick to the "straight and narrow."