Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@doot@glitterkitten.co.uk @mark Wait, which one is today's one?

@zens@merveilles.town That depends heavily on what you mean with "natural". Obviously, "do nothing and let nature sort itself out" isn't gonna be a solution, but that doesn't automatically mean that mechanisms like algae cannot be sufficient when deliberately/strategically applied.

Assuming that we must need to invent some futuristic technology (which does not exist yet and therefore we cannot actually apply today) is, to me, just the other end of the "appeal to nature" fallacy.

Maybe the answer *does* turn out to be that algae (and other "natural" forms of carbon capture) cannot be sufficient. But that should be verified and supported with evidence/numbers, not just assumed and preemptively excluded as an option!

Otherwise we'll just end up doing nothing and waiting for some hypothetical future technology to arrive (that maybe never will), all the while the problem gets worse.

@zens@merveilles.town Honestly, I suspect that the reason is more depressing than that; it just isn't shiny enough for the "climate techbros" who love to talk about futuristic carbon capture technology (that does not currently exist), and it isn't "grandfathered" into the conversation like trees are either.

@zens@merveilles.town Did you only do the math for trees, though? Because IIRC there are much better options like algae.

@tobi Also note how they're usually the same people who are very insistent that *absolutely everybody in the world* must be using Mastodon, absolute scalability brain

@tobi I mean, considering that that is literally how the whole startup industry works

@Quinnae_Moon@wandering.shop @jdp23 Quite an informative article, thanks - that's clarified a few of the claims for me that I've heard thrown around but never fully understood.

One aspect I'm missing in that article, though: the distinction between toxicity as in "someone deliberately using it for toxic purposes" and toxicity as in "driving people towards ambient toxic interaction patterns without realizing it".

The article seems to only address the former (and makes good points as to why that's not a particularly big concern!), but my concern would be more with the latter - particularly when used by (white) folks who do not have an existing concept of "playing the dozens".

In that case, you very quickly end up at behaviour patterns along the lines of "QT someone with a snarky comment for personal clout", with none of the understanding or context of a call-and-response culture - driving focus towards clout-chasing rather than genuine conversation.

(Also the related problem of "QTing problematic toots to point them out just helps them spread, and so people start deliberately saying shitty things to get more exposure", which is the same problem but from the other side of the QT)

TL;DR: I don't think the problem is Black folks using the feature, as there's clearly a cultural context for it there to make it work. I'm worried about how it'd be used by other folks who *don't* have that context, and what kind of behaviour that drives on a fedi-wide scale.

I have no idea how to address this. I hope this comment even made any sense at all, as I'm not in the best brainspace right now...

@raboof @winduptoy But also, if a provider did this to me, I'd probably start looking to move.

@raboof @winduptoy Ahh, Vimexx. They don't exactly have the best reputation...

@pikachu@toot.site The original form of federation