- 0 Posts
- 12 Comments
Perhaps it’s controversial, but I actually disagree. I think the fediverse protocol (ActivityPub) would be enriched by even some of the scum and the toxic people switching over.
Half the appeal of decentralization is different servers can cater to different demographics (at least that’s the goal as the project matures). While we both agree that we’d like our content to not be adulterated with garbage, having some unsavory people here will help us build the tools to deal with them effectively.
And at the end of the day, I have my suspicions that sometimes social media platforms with a profit motive may amplify the ‘controversial’ simply as a way to drive engagement. ActivityPub doesn’t do that, so those people might have less influence. Heck, is it too much to think that the environment change to Lemmy may snap some of them into healthier social habits (a stretch for sure, but I’m hopelessly optimistic).
Yes, but also ‘bringing back a classic’ and having it wash away the controversy would also suit Reddit’s goal. I assume they plan to spin it favorably in any case.
I personally think the better plan is to shift focus back to where it should be - the people. Making Reddit look the fool in the court of public opinion matters more to me than Reddit’s shareholders, present or future.
It’s ludicrous that people here can’t be honest with themselves.
Do I not qualify as part of people here by virtue of this is where we’re talking? I suspect when you wrote that you meant to include me, but after my reply it was no longer convenient for you to lump me in with everyone else by that statement.
Maybe you’ll clarify who you meant by that, or maybe not. In either case, I wish you a great day. Thank you for the discussion in good faith.
Dude, check your assumptions. I haven’t pirated anything in at least a decade. I’m just an IT guy that signed up for Lemmy and puruses the ‘all’ page.
I do think there’s an excellent case for the moral application of piracy in many situations.
Large corporations often acquire their catalog of legally protected ideas through the systemic exploitation of people. If the people who did the work have been paid every cent they’ll ever get for their work, and the work itself has recouped the cost to make it, then I see no moral imperative for the work to make another dime of revenue. Obviously that’s not a black and white issue and obviously piracy often does hurt smaller creators, so care and reason are called for here.
On the flip side sharing is core part of the basic human experience and there’s a great argument to be made that with the advent of computers (which have both reduced the technical barriers to access tools to create, and have expanded the possibilities of what can be created), copyright law is too restrictive and is actually impedes the creation of new art, running against the fundamental point of copyright in the first place. Since the average person does not have Disney money for lawyers and lobbyists piracy often seems like the sensible way to for the common person to push back.
I also think that piracy can hurt people who absolutely do not deserve it. But I’m not going to pretend a complex societal issue is as simple ‘law good, law breakers bad’.
I bristle a bit at being accused of dishonesty and I think that limiting the conversation to the money spent in the production of the original work and wholesale dismissal is distribution is unnecessarily restrictive - it’s not like capitalism is a system limited to the original production of media.
That said, I think we can agree that it’s worthwhile to funnel money into direct payment to artists whenever possible. Middlemen like the record studios offer terrible value, seeming to exist solely to siphon away as much value as possible.
Looks at Nintendo that sells the same game from 1985 to it’s customer base again and again every new console.
Looks back in history at Blockbuster, a company that would sell someone the same content multiple times.
Looks at any rent-to-own store that effectively charges 2x - 10x the price of their content for the mere privilege of taking longer to buy it.
Looks to me that people pay for content multiple times anytime a corporation can get away with it.
The rest of your statement is at best a very naïve approach to capitalism.
I like the enthusiasm, but I have no idea how a community driven project would interface with the appropriate regulatory boards to perform the safety tests to make such a vehicle street legal.
Even if we got a prototype through that, the organization would then have to take on the burden of ensuring every build lived up to the prototype, and that would almost definitely go against the spirit of being community driven.
I’m very glad it works for you. Edge is a perfectly fine browser ever since they ditched their engine and copied Google’s Chrome with a coat of paint and a couple extensions baked in.
To be frank though, if Edge forking Chromium is the best the tech titan Microsoft can do, I’m genuinely disappointed in them, and I’d rather just use Chromium.