“If you invade there will be sanctions.”
“We don’t care”
“It will make finances not as good”
“We don’t care”
“That means you can’t pay your debts”
“We don’t care”
“Ok then”
Invade
“Hey, why can’t we pay our debts?! Let’s make up an imaginary conversation that selectively excludes critical contextual details and absolves us of blame in the most adolescent way imaginable”
🙄
Of all the ways you could possibly interpret it, you deliberately chose the most most ridiculous interpretation.
A more reasonable interpretation is to note that internet atmosphere of highly censored political discourse, comments spreading fake news, comments encouraging warmongering and comments derisive of Ukraine have a place within political discourse on China’s internet.
That this is permitted a place on the spectrum of acceptable opinion is the point. It’s easier to caricature the point by exaggerating it and then disagreeing with the exaggeration.
The point is not to make sense, it’s to make a frivolous low effort claim. It’s kind of like the liars dividend, because it’s a lot easier to be lazy and say something that’s wrong, than it is to put in the effort to correct the wrong thing that was said.
The liar’s dividend is about demanding something obviously true be proved to the satisfaction of an unreasonably skeptical person which requires all kinds of effort above and beyond what we normally require to establish day to day beliefs.
This is a little bit different. It could be called the trolls dividend. The goal isn’t really to refute the article, which can take a lot of effort, it’s to kind of split the difference with low effort trolling. Much more efficient.
I think I explained why I think you can call this successful without having similar numbers to reddit.
Widespread user adoption is important, but that is being achieved. I don’t think I agree that the specific criteria of “being more used than Reddit by FOSS enthusiasts” is a make or break criteria that decides whether this is a success.
I think Lemmy is functional, usable on its own terms, and aside from not quite doing enough to ban trolls it’s valuable in its present form.
I would distinguish it from, say, diaspora, which I don’t believe has reached a critical mass of users and frankly just isn’t designed well enough to really get off the ground.
There’s a cat and mouse game every few years where you have trolls who poison communities, and communities that adapt their community norms in response, and then trolls who adapt their behavior to new communities norms and on and on.
I think modernized community norms for 2022 would identify most of the stuff you are doing: expressing disagreement through antagonization and ridicule, gish galloping, one-dimensional focus on controversial subjects, lack of gracious contrition when wrong or even when right, and a cumulative net effect of constantly creating hostile back-and-forths as within the bounds of what it means to be a troll who poisons a community in 2022. If it were up to me we would update community norms on Lemmy to exclude this kind of behavior.
You make dozens of comments on a daily basis attacking people over and over, you were catastrophically wrong about fundamental facts relating to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, evinced no willingness whatsoever to engage in self-examination about why you were wrong, and you can’t seem to express disagreement without antagonizing others, have an irritating inclination toward self-satisfied last-wordism which doesn’t make you right but just wrong in ways that are tedious to litigate, and your entire comment history is a history of you arguing with other people 24x7.
I can’t think of any thread on lemmy where you did anything that was contributing to building a positive community and I think the community would be more healthy without you here.
I was wondering what the point of lemmy was
What was great in the early days of Mastodon is that, for those who could remember, it recaptured the feel of the “early” internet. You could feel distinct and interesting voices, patience and willingness to get into deepdives, where the payoff was from one to one interactions with personalities deeply interested in interaction itself and passion projects.
That made it have a value in and of itself that didn’t depend on competing platforms.
That said, you can feel echoes of typical internet culture all throughout the fediverse now. I don’ think you should measure success or failure on replacing reddit, but its great to have a place ready and waiting to absorb communities that become (say) disenchanted with bad mods.
So the model for replacements I think would be looking at how facebook replaced myspace, and how reddit replaced digg. In both cases, there was widespread user disenchantment at substandard designs and redesigns that disregarded interests of users. I think that kind of catastrophic incompetence and disregard for users was unique to a particular era, and there probably have emerged some industry standards and best practices to stop that from happening in our current internet, for better or for worse.
I think with reddits redesign, it has become increasingly frustrating to the user base, and there is a prospect that user disenchantment with reddit could lead to something, but I think its a long shot. The important thing to remember about reddit is that they caught a wave of exponential growth by not fucking things up, and staying more or less consistent with their product.
I think the best thing Lemmy can do is be consistent and keep doing what it is doing, and not try and reinvent itself. I actually think the website’s functionality on mobile is truly fantastic, the best I’ve experienced from using a website in place of a dedicated app, so I wouldn’t worry about it. I think so much of Lemmy is right in its current for, and 99% of the issue with fediverse products is that the ui/design is being terrible, and it took Mastodon to kind of teach people that it mattered. So yeah, I think the main thing is to not mess with success.
Replying to me by saying “oh so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation over ordinary terminology.
It’s a signal that you are not even trying to engage in good faith. If people on Lemmy saw nothing other than this chain of comments it would be sufficient reason to never engage with you.
We’ll get to that, if you want an hour long tedious point by point debate where you constantly argue definitions and split differences.
But first, what I’m telling you now is that “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a totally obtuse and disingenuous paraphrase and a signal that nobody on Lemmy should bother trying to reason with you, because you aren’t willing to try.
Somehow the rest of the world, including everyone you were arguing with, were able to see it from the same set of “tHe FaCtS” and see the obvious and you weren’t, and you don’t want to do any self-reflection unless lead by the nose through god knows how many tedious paragraphs of details, fighting every step of the way. More responsible people, such as Nina Kruscheva are able to do that on their own.
Totally obtuse answer. I’m saying that your assessment of what counted as “the facts” and your interpretation of them was completely wrong, and possibly driven by biases that you may want to examine further, and I gave you the example of another person who, in a similar case took ownership of their mistake.
If you think a JV debate team game where you try and twist my words into “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at ThE fAcTs?!”, that’s just a signal in favor of the conclusion that you have been and are continuing to be completely disingenuous. These are just not adult answers.
Again, nobody owes you minute by minute explanations. And yes, you were demanding those. About 20 minutes had passed from your last reply to the parent commenter to your next comment declaring that they ducked out of the thread, as if failing in a duty to respond to you.
Now you’re constantly refreshing the page minute by minute, hour by hour, demanding that your confidently incorrect denials of obvious facts be responded to in detail.
That’s ridiculous and it’s wasting everybody’s time.
It’s unfortunate that literally everyone you were arguing with apparently was able to see the trajectory of events more clearly than you.
Hopefully some self-reflection will be in order and you can see if the same errors of judgment are compromising your ability to evaluate subsequent events in Ukraine and make excuses, and if your counterparts making the same arguments as you are similarly blind.
Nina Khrushcheva, a professor at the New School, spoke to NPR this morning. Like you, she was dismissing talk of an impending invasion as Western-driven hysteria. She confessed on the air that this was a major embarrassment for her, which I found to be a nice moment of accountability. Surely you can follow her example.
I know you are being sarcastic, but there were a handful of people across Lemmy insisting there was no invasion coming.
They said that the military buildup didn’t happen, that it was just the latest in a history of false alarms, that it was just the west warmongering, etc. and basically spent the last week calling people crazy for suspecting that any attack was on the table.
Oops, just wrong about an impending war where the evidence was screamingly obvious. No biggie.
There is a substantial new troop presence at a scale without recent precedent and you’re just trying to change the subject. It has recently been reported as 190,000 troops. Literally none of the articles cited by you or your friend have those kinds of figures.
So to recap:
- The Rostov base has nothing to do with anything
- a news cycle about a picture has nothing to do with anything
- The timeline of previous buildups have nothing to do with anything.
You’re just cycling through stupid derails, one after another. Next you’re probably going to post a news article about how a reporter said something wrong about Russia in 2017 and say “what about this?!?!” And that, too, will have nothing to do with anything.
You’re continuing to waste my time and yours, which I’m guessing is the goal here.
The stupid, it burns. There’s 130k to 150k possibly 190k troops there now. No previous article mentions that number of troops. This represents an escalation, which is higher than any number in the articles you are linking which means…there are new troops there that were not previously there before. Kinda weird that I have to say something like that out loud.
This also completely ignores the fact that the largest country in the world, specifically massing troops on all borders of a specific country isn’t the same as having them distributed anywhere in the country.
Thank you for recommending this! This is exactly the kind of thing I hope to find on Lemmy. I wanted to figure out how much it costs because it’s a little unclear even on the pricing page. But I see it looks like you pay as you stream up to $11.20.
I will say, I love this way of thinking about their catalog:
the explorer
“I want something new every day.”
10€ ($11.20) at Resonate provides around 4 hours of listening a day – 30 days a month – to wander our catalog.
How can you say a catalog is limited when you get 4 hours of new music a day?? It’s a good way of thinking of it.
It doesn’t appear to be FOSS, but they do say under “what’s next”:
How can we support and collaborate with each other, not just between artists and listeners, but across like-minded platforms?
I also like old.reddit.com, even for your mobile browser.
People are saying they all have seen this but… I’m on reddit mobile all the time and this is new to me. At least this way of doing it.
What I normally see is “reddit is better in the app” and two buttons, asking you to try the app or if you want to stay in the browser. It was presented kind of as a choice. Now it looks like a demand!
I think Lemmy is just not formatted the same way as StackOverflow.
I think we need an activitypub-style project that aims to replicate the functionality of stackoverflow for that to work. But I 1000% agree that StackOverflow is a great example of something that could live just fine on the fediverse.
Eh, I think I’m at a very different place. Yes, it’s true that it’s in early stages, and the rollout and media talk at the current moment if probably influenced by public criticism of Facebook rather than the technology being ready.
However, one of the largest companies in the world is working on it, and elevating it to a central strategic objective. They are seeking to set the trajectory of the whole technology, possibly creating new cultural norms, possibly setting everything on a centralized framework instead of open protocols, and possibly creating a whole new set of issues relating to access, privatization, democracy, spread of misinformation, and power. We could easily look back in 20-30 years and say we wish that robust alternatives were opposed in the beginning.
So while I ate there’s nothing much to do and nutting to be done right now, I think facebooks involvement should be considered a significant thing to reckon with.
Which would be awesome. A fediverse that depends on all servers being the same is effectively centralized. A fediverse where there are freestanding reasons for joining any of a million different servers is a fediverse where dependence on outside servers is minimized, which is a good thing.
You want enough content to keep things interested but don’t necessarily need the logic of any and all instances to be that they must depend on access to a server other than the one that operate on in order to be worthy of use.
An advantage of federating is to accommodate servers with a variety of objectives, and maximizing content isn’t always the primary objective. Sometimes it’s to cultivate a good community that uses the tools in on the platform but not necessarily to have the widest reach of content, because creating places that moderate harassment and antagonization is sometimes the higher priority. Sometimes that, and not maximized access to content, is what draws people in. The major influxes of users to Mastodon at it’s start joined for exactly this reason.
I think the concern regarding centralization was always with respect to the network as a whole - all of Twitter is just on Twitter, all of Facebook is just on Facebook, neither are spread across servers. Having multiple servers that exist for their own purpose serves to support decentralization, and having one server that has all the stuff you want that doesn’t connect with other servers is not realistically going to create another Facebook situation in terms of centralization, at least not at any point in the near future. The closest we have to that right now is Mastodon.social having the lions share of Mastodon users (in the English speaking world that is), and federating with mastodon.social leads to effectively leads to being a clone of Madison.social. That isn’t necessarily bad, but some communities have the goal of cultivating unique voices and letting specific kinds of content rise to the top, and that all washes out to an average, lowest common denominator if they federate with the biggest servers. Rather than centralizing, it serves to create a diversity of unique offerings.
I’m also generally wary of arguments that everything needs to be connected because trolls frequently make that argument, hoping to pry open the platform for more harassment, and by design the fediverse is structured to be resilient against that. So it’s good to get people explicitly on the record about whether they think trolling is a problem, whether “free speech” on the internet is more important than moderation, and what they think the implications of their suggestion are on that issue, because it’s at the heart of federation, and sometimes these conversations are really just about creating a backdoor for trolling and normizaling policies that make trolling easy.
Yeah, they get watered down and there’s a curation problem. I like stuff like Wirecutter where the idea is (a) that someone is curating for you and (b) you have some reason to believe they have good judgment.
I don’t think you necessarily have that reassurance when it comes to, say NPR’s best music list or best books list which I think is probably just a bland echo of what other places are already saying. But it at least helps to cover for blind spots, if you care about keeping up with the cultural conversations that are happening.
But what I really want is something that is opinionated, that has personality, like Fogus’s list of Best things And Stuff from 2021, which is what gave me the original idea.
Oh, that is a good point. If you go down a level then that leaves you with singlethink.
That could be helpful too, depending on what you’re trying to achieve.