naught101 @ naught101 @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

663

Joined

1 yr. ago

What... are you talking about?

Bluesky has the network effect, at least for some domains of content. Mastodon has about 50% coverage of my domain of interests, but that's probably way less for many people.

Mastodon has the guaranteed lack of enshittification via decentralisation. Bluesky is promising it, but it seems far from guaranteed, and if it doesn't happen, I'm betting it'll enshittify about 4 times faster than twitter, because everything does these days..

So Bluesky is probably a better bet in the short term for general users.. I'm glad people are escaping twitter at least. But I'm sticking with Mastodon, 'cause fuck going through all that again in a couple of years.

Then a rapid decent into profit maximisation at the expense of user experience.

I don't think that that's the only reasonable intpretation you can draw from anthropology and archaeology.

If you want a good example of an alternative interpretation, I'd recommend reading Wengrow and Graeber's boom The Dawn Of Everything.

Sure. Also many other cultures who have been contacted and haven't been completely destroyed.

But the point is not that we should copy some tiny tribe's way of life, the point is that western dominionism is not the only way that humans are capable of organising their societies. There are likely many other ways that have never been tried yet that are much better than what we have now.

Because market crashes are not good for anyone in the sector.. Hence I think the regulations brought in via the FSB in response to the GFC were broadly accepted (though probably with varying degrees of willingness).

Probably not by millions of mostly young people who use it.. The Dems pushing that through in an election year probably didn't help their chances..

Let's just ban corporate-controlled social media.

The intent on e.g. YouTube is to optimise views. Radicalisation is an emergent outcome, as a result of more combatitive, controversial, and flashy content being more captivating in the medium term. This is documented to some extent in Johann Hari's book Stolen Focus, where he interviews a couple of insiders.

So no, the stated intent is not the bias (at least initially). The bias is an pathological outcome of optimising for ads.

But looking at some of Meta's intentional actions more recently, it seems like maybe it can become an intentional outcome after the fact?

It's also an easy/lazy excuse to absolve themselves from responsibility.

Like, OK, if voting is the only mechanism, did you spend time on the phones or on the streets convincing people how to vote? Or talking to representatives about policy? Somehow I doubt it.

This seems somewhat relevant

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

Number 3 is interesting for me.. The finance sector is pretty aware of the need to control stupid risk taking, and the don't want another GFC, so I guess they'd (broadly) want to keep some of the regulation around that. What else is there? General bad acting and things like excessive fees? That also seems to be a risk driver, in the long term, as it leads to e.g. increased loan defaults... Where do you think the key problems would be?

Edit: whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to @r00ty@kbin.life

It's the current western dominionist mindset that's the mistake. Don't mistake that for all of humanity (even if it currently makes up 90% of it).

🫂

Yeah, that's fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.

But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)

I think they probably appear in different types of situations, not all at once. And maybe different types of people/thinking are more prone to some than to others.

... Art?

Really? The birthday problem is a super simple multiplication, you can do it on paper. The only thing you really need to understand is the inversion of probability (P(A) = 1 - P(not A)).

The Monty hall problem... I've understood it at times, but every time I come back to it I have to figure it out again, usually with help. That shit is unintuitive.

Less tax is better.

No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.

OK, that would be funny