This has to be one of the most boomer, gaslighting take i've ever seen. Yes, not the constant attack on LGBTQ rights, not the domestic abuses, not the shit education and academic culture, not blatant racism and neo-nazism but smartphones are what caused the mental health issues.
The only issue i find with your proposition is that one could simply rebuild a whole site on a different platform: while that is true, one does not own or hold the code for the site as built using a website builder afaik (correct me if im wrong) and hence it is difficult to get similar results as the one on the "current" builder and takes up extra labour, where hiring a website builder and maintainer will ensure the ownership of the code.
Bluesky identities are portable by design, so you can modify your identity without moving servers or you can move servers without losing your identity/content/followers.
we don't like fediverse because its a bad soultion, federation combines the negatives of centralization (censorship) and decentralization (disparat userbases with few users ).
Censorship seems like a non-problem on mastodon. If you are using someone else's server, and you break their rules, you'll lose your account. Just try another server. If you run your own server you make the rules. Other servers and users may block/mute your server but some may not. If everyone blocks your server and no one else joins your server, then maybe no one wants to hear you. You are not entitled to force people to listen to you.
you don't see how that doesn't compare to twitter in terms of functionality?
the great thing of twitter is that you have a unified userbase that can interact and discourse on a single platform, if every 10 people have their own walled off server this is more like a groupchat than twitter
The censorship model is mostly the same, right? If you don't self-host, your host can censor your communication and refuse to relay or peer certain messages.
Google will decide what people should and shouldnt do. Google will decide whether people deserve privacy in their lives for certain things or not. Language of the abusers.
I al hoping that one day American society will wake up to the fact that Tyranny can, and has been privatised. It is not only the state that you should be afraid of.
Surveillance capitalism is several orders of fucked up, but to call it tyranny is pretty dismissive of the plight of people living under actual tyranny.
> it's not dismissive. Both are evil on a spectrum. One does not negate the plightgs [sic] of the other.
There are generational labor camps in North Korea and a litany of horrible ongoing civil wars in Africa. They are evil. So is industry pushback against unleaded aviation fuel [1][2]. But comparing the evils of the civil war in Somalia to those of leaded avgas is, at best, pointless.
No one has compared them except you. Using a word doesn't automatically mean someone is equating everything under the umbrella. You would do better to focus on the definition of the word if you're so inclined on arguing - "cruel and oppressive government or rule.". I think this holds with the original point that Google can be seen as oppressive rule since they decide the rules, which don't necessarily align with what the people think is right.
Cool. I'm going to stop calling the guy who killed one of my friends a murderer, or the Sacklers. It's really disrespectful to the people who were killed by Hitler or Pol Pot.
Yes, but your point is? This is a thread about Google and their abuses, so it makes sense that is what is being discussed (not invalidating that there are much worse things happening in the world).
There’s a point where the difference disappears, we aren’t there yet, but in a way walking in that direction happy as sheep. Grass is green and there’s only a couple dogs around and they don’t bite, mostly, so all is fine.
I dont know of any good reason to have gratitude for a corporation for anything. Having gratitude of the workers and academics that made it happen on the other hand? Sure, that's fair. But gratitude for a corporation, especially one that is dystopian and anti-consumer in everything they do? No can do.
You’re getting grayed out, probably for not jumping on the praise the corp bandwagon, but yeah you have a solid point.
We mustn’t confuse the people who make a corp great for the corp itself. The people are (or can be) awesome, while the corp which is a profit-driven institution that won’t hesitate turning against the people that make it great if it has to increase profitability a couple of quarters down the line.
Wake up, folks, they’re in it for themselves, they don’t (want to) care about you either as employees or as consumers if they don’t have to.
