291–300 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use facebook for keeping track of events. If someone would just make a good replacement for that (that people would use) I wouldn't attribute much utility to facebook.
Do something about it. Every little thing matters. I just submitted an issue to Mastodon: https://github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/issues/5843
While I agree, knowing exactly where to put your weight is more than half the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social media for informing and coordinating citizens to fight injustice. Now that I'm older and wiser, I can tell you that no evolution or revolution can happen because of Facebook, only regression. Facebook is poison. I'll add to that. The internet is a great tool for coordinating citizens, spreading information, and fighting injustice. Having facebook , o…
Without Capitalism we wouldn’t have anything like Facebook or Twitter. These services don’t control ‘the’ flow of information, they are entirely additive to what we had before. Arguing that we have worse options for communication now is bizarre. So what is the non capitalist alternative? State controlled social media services? Really? That would be a better option in Romania right now? Facebook is far from perfect, I…
Come on. More like decentralized, optionally self hosted istances of open source social networks.
Given the amount of politics meddling that Facebook,Twitter Google and Amazon do especially out of the US, i would consider THEM the actual state-controlled service.
I think we need a distributed alternative of Facebook. I wider adoption of https://mastodon.social/ could be a good start...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First it is a confusion about the condition of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism can function very well in a dictatorship . Second , Facebook is able to make compromise about free speech because is just a bussiness . If in a country , the usage of facebook is conditionated by the power ,the company will accept the rules of the power because its interest is to make money in that country. You can see china.
Do you have an example? In most dictatorships I know state was deeply involved in the economy, thus making it socialist. Capitalism requires free markets. Freedom, the opposite of dictatorship.
Capitalism doesn't require a free market. As evidenced by American ISP's, all you need is capital and the will to have more of it plus the cooperation of the government.
Freedom is not involved in Capitalism nor is it an evident feature of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So what is the non capitalist alternative? Here they are: https://prism-break.org/en/all/#social-networks
I would go one further and suggest simply hosting your own site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First it is a confusion about the condition of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism can function very well in a dictatorship . Second , Facebook is able to make compromise about free speech because is just a bussiness . If in a country , the usage of facebook is conditionated by the power ,the company will accept the rules of the power because its interest is to make money in that country. You can see china.
Do you have an example? In most dictatorships I know state was deeply involved in the economy, thus making it socialist. Capitalism requires free markets. Freedom, the opposite of dictatorship.
Also, free movement of capital and 'Freedom' are not at all the same thing, and don't always exist in the same places at the same time. Capitalism can totally exist where there isn't a democracy. China. Russia. Sure, it looks different from western capitalism, but it sure as hell isn't socialism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First it is a confusion about the condition of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism can function very well in a dictatorship . Second , Facebook is able to make compromise about free speech because is just a bussiness . If in a country , the usage of facebook is conditionated by the power ,the company will accept the rules of the power because its interest is to make money in that country. You can see china.
Do you have an example? In most dictatorships I know state was deeply involved in the economy, thus making it socialist. Capitalism requires free markets. Freedom, the opposite of dictatorship.
>Capitalism requires freedom, the opposite of dictatorship.
You clearly have some amount of misunderstanding or an active bias/axe to grind. Suffice to say, that's not what any of those terms mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social media for informing and coordinating citizens to fight injustice. Now that I'm older and wiser, I can tell you that no evolution or revolution can happen because of Facebook, only regression. Facebook is poison. I'll add to that. The internet is a great tool for coordinating citizens, spreading information, and fighting injustice. Having facebook , o…
It came to this after Silicon Valley was thrown into a moral panic over the tools they had built wasn't just for Tunis and Cairo, for Obama and Ron Paul, but also for Brexit and Trump. Moral panics are never productive, but this won't be the time we learn this either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First it is a confusion about the condition of capitalism and democracy. Capitalism can function very well in a dictatorship . Second , Facebook is able to make compromise about free speech because is just a bussiness . If in a country , the usage of facebook is conditionated by the power ,the company will accept the rules of the power because its interest is to make money in that country. You can see china.
Do you have an example? In most dictatorships I know state was deeply involved in the economy, thus making it socialist. Capitalism requires free markets. Freedom, the opposite of dictatorship.
I don't think that's true. Under the Nazis plenty of businesses did well despite not having free markets. In the end capitalists want to make money first
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without Capitalism we wouldn’t have anything like Facebook or Twitter. These services don’t control ‘the’ flow of information, they are entirely additive to what we had before. Arguing that we have worse options for communication now is bizarre. So what is the non capitalist alternative? State controlled social media services? Really? That would be a better option in Romania right now? Facebook is far from perfect, I…
> So what is the non capitalist alternative? State controlled social media services? Really? That would be a better option in Romania right now? Right here you ask for an alternative, then suggest it is one particular alternative, then argue against that as if it's the only answer. Do you think that's an honest way of debating?