minnow

Makes a ton of sense. It only makes Google look bad when their users can’t actually view the results of their search. Imagine if the first page of a Google search was nothing but limited access stuff (paywalls, members only, etc) it would drive users to the competition really fast.

You do see how it could have a chilling effect on engagement if the “someone” judging you negatively for your vote is, say, a repressive government, right? And what’s the point of a social network without engagement?

And it’s that acceleration that’s the real problem. If this sort of warming happened over twenty or thirty thousand years, the ecosystem would have a chance to adapt and maybe humanity along with it. A couple hundred years? Nah mate, ecological collapse is going to happen and it’ll probably take us with it.

You keep mentioning whether it’s effective policy, but that has nothing to do with SCOTUS. Their one and only concern is whether the policy is constitutional. Effectiveness is for the other branches of government to deal with.

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.

I think the critical difference is “Meta pushes for changes” vs “Meta pushes for changes with the support of thousands/millions of users”.

If Meta convinces Thread users that a certain change is good for them, it’s going to be that much harder for the people developing ActivityPub to push back on those changes. And even if the developers succeed, Meta can just use that to say “fine, we’ll fork off and make our own ActivityPub with data collection and advertisements” and if enough instances in the Fediverse are reliant one Threads for engagement they may just switch to the Meta version of ActivityPub, taking a chunk of our community with them.

And maybe that’s alright for some folks, but a lot of us don’t want any of that to happen, even potentially. I think it’s pretty unethical to deliver people into the maw of the beast like that, so to speak.

Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that’s the case for the subreddit you’re looking at?

“Keep what you earn” is a bullshit concept in the first place. If it was a valid ideology at all, then I should be getting paid 100% of the value that I generate for the company I work for. That’s what I earned. But nobody’s making that argument because it’s plainly farcical. So too is the idea that we should “keep what we earn” when it comes to taxes.

He was a grifter and a threat to society. I’m not going to say I’m happy he’s dead, but I’ll sure nod along when other people do.

(I mean, I’d have preferred he live and work to undo the damage he’s caused, but I’m not an idiot)

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7945119/all-politics-is-identity-politics