Having said all that, I'm now interested in what the outcome of Windows being (largely, at least) Free Software would be. I suspect it'd be fairly like the Chrome situation - Microsoft's supported commercial release would probably still dominate even if anyone else could theoretically compete, since the sheer level of effort required to maintain a fork would make it impractical for anyone else to compete
@kescher I would personally probably reply explaining that it is a confirmation e-mail for a signup and that no further e-mails will be sent to them unless they confirm their account - I would expect the notification to be automatic, but the reply (if any) to be handled manually.
*However*, I don't know what the current e-mail landscape looks like, so this is definitely *not* an answer from an 'experienced mail admin' perspective, and it's possible there's something I'm not aware of.
@SnoozyRests@cyberpunk.lol Right; I can only speak for my own discussions, which were often trying to encourage people to consider a FOSS donation model *instead of* a proprietary payment scheme, usually people who were already pretty okay financially and could easily afford to take that risk. Hence why I'm considering them something different :)
It seems likely that broader, more public discussions around funding OSS are closer to mutual aid, as you describe, because they often revolve around people who are *already* doing a lot of work for the community.
(I do personally consider FOSS to itself be a form of mutual aid in some ways, though only one of many, and certainly not a magical solution to all ills)
meta; mastodon for harris; US politics; mutual aid meta
this shit is honestly making me feel so sick it is giving me nausea. I'm already in a fucking bad place and now I can barely stand. I've been all day in bed.
people keep asking for money for the most basic necessities for how fucking long. people go fucking starving and get almost nothing. every fucking cent given that way is making actual material difference in the world and even if half of the money given goes towards a scammers (it fucking doesn't), it will still do measurable better good than giving what in the grand scheme of things be fucking pennies to a fucking imperialist party (and take the double meaning).
this is money who could change people's life but it will go down to pay for some pamphlet that will just go to the thrash.
this is conscious laundering to a fucking T. you wanna feel fucking good about yourself. doing shit so can say "I did my part" when shit hits the fan when you in fact, did nothing, because doing something that would actually impact the american politics is too much fucking work (like actually talking to people for once).
and the fucking worse is, it could have made a difference if you gave it to fucking anyone else. we always knew y'all didn't gave a fuck but you're now showing us the receipt.
you're on the wrong side of this. there already are blood on your hands.
@compuguy @h @kamala It's a reasonable request, but I think it's equally reasonable to turn it down.
If it were causing harm (and briefly confusing a few people is not "harm"), things would be different. But it's really not the job of a moderation system to police every single word anyone says, or for that matter any account anyone creates, and enforce perfectly literal and straightforward communication.
Communication is messy sometimes, parody is very much a part of that, and as long as it punches up that should be fine IMO.
@SnoozyRests@cyberpunk.lol Kind of related: I've had *many* discussions with people over the years about donation-based funding for open-source projects. Almost every single one ran aground on this exact same assumption, or some version of it.
"How do we make sure that nobody is freeloading?"
"There would be lots of people who wouldn't donate, this would never work to pay the bills!"
And so on, and so forth. I'd try explaining to them that it doesn't actually *matter* whether everyone donates, it's not like selling something, just enough donations need to be made to cover the costs.
I was mostly met with complete bafflement, and people having a lot of trouble internalizing this idea, often just responding with "let's agree to disagree" or repeating arguments that assumed everybody would need to donate, despite what I'd just explained.
This is of course very different from mutual aid, given that it was often about donations to people who *could* find other ways to pay the bills (and just wouldn't be able to work on the open-source stuff then), but the dynamics are strikingly similar...
politics meta (not fedi meta), why things never seem to go anywhere
Something that frustrates me is that political discourse and action largely sorts into two buckets:
1. "Everything is fucked and we can't fix it anyway!"
2. "I'm doing my part already by being involved in <some local thing>, what more are you expecting?"
And they are both wrong but for different reasons; "everything is fucked" is a reasonable feeling to have but ultimately doesn't reflect what can *actually* be accomplished with the right organizing, and "I'm already doing my part, I can't do more" is *also* a reasonable feeling but ignores that the idea of a "first step towards progress" only works if you acknowledge that there are many more steps to follow!
And because the second category never ends up achieving large-scale change (because they consider the work done after the first step), the first category never experiences what can be achieved, and so the first category of folks doesn't get involved, and that then causes the second category of folks to keep feeling overextended, and on and on it goes in a circle.
The actual solution here is to start small, with an accessible first step, *and* treat that as a stepping stone towards larger, overarching organization, where you constantly keep pushing for that larger change (even if you personally are not the one doing the work there!).
But both categories of people will tend to reject this idea (often implicitly rather than explicitly), for a different reasons.
How on earth do we resolve this?
@volpeon Sorry, I didn't end up completing that thought... basically it's the same thing I've seen in a lot of political circles, where a complete lack of community and solidarity is what keeps change from occurring because the bar to *organizing* that change is too high for any one person, and building up sustainable solidarity is the only way to deal with that across the board, starting very very small if needed
@volpeon I don't think it's "don't care" so much as "everybody individually feels they can't fix it anyway so they choose to accept it and work around it"
i found this website on accident on the internet.
https://www.betrayingwhiteness.org/
in short, it's a "guided online learning path toward understanding & undermining the constructs of race" and is primarily focused on deconstructing race, class and white supremacy, and is aimed at white folks that wish to do some self-reflection to understand their own bias and work towards a future without white supremacy
i find it useful myself as someone who wants to work on that, so i thought i'd share that w yall
There's a thing that annoys me a lot that I'm going to call the "subtractive fallacy" where whenever you advocate for getting rid of some harmful tech or practice or cultural aspect and the person who wants to pick a fight with you treats it like all you can do is remove: not fix, not replace, not change just leave a gaping hole where something used to be
"abolish the police" => "so we should just let people assault and rob us in our homes and not do anything to stop it"
"end compulsory schooling" => "so children should all be illiterate and never learn anything"
"end car culture" => "so if you can't walk you just won't be able to get anywhere?"
@thomholwerda (And crucially, you may have the right spend your money as you please, but you certainly do not have the right to be free of criticism for doing so)
Hey! Big big work to do!
This week is a GREAT time to get activated!
How, though?
Read on for a framework and some questions to help you figure out where you need to be in the work-- and to help you remember that another world is possible.
We can only get there when we begin to live into it now, in all the ways our values bring it to us today. 🌱❤️
This is true of organizations and societies as well as machines. Rules and norms are a kind of technology, in that they have a similar ability to constrain your choices.
Some things are not allowed because of objective, concrete hazards to people and the continued functioning of the whole system.
Some things are not allowed simply because the powerful wish it to be so.
Knowing which is which is crucial to progress.
It's important to have a good understanding of how technology works.
Not because getting a STEM job is valuable, or because technical knowledge is somehow more important than other types of knowledge.
It's because the powerful will use your ignorance of technology against you.
Systems are designed — out of necessity and intentionally — to constrain your choices. It's important to understand which constraints are technically necessary, and which are just there to exploit or control you.
Technical debt collector and general hype-hater. Early 30s, non-binary, ND, poly, relationship anarchist, generally queer.
- No alt text (request) = no boost.
- Boosts OK for all boostable posts.
- DMs are open.
- Flirting welcome, but be explicit if you want something out of it!
- The devil doesn't need an advocate; no combative arguing in my mentions.
Sometimes horny on main (behind CW), very much into kink (bondage, freeuse, CNC, and other stuff), and believe it or not, very much a submissive bottom :p
My spoons are limited, so I may not always have the energy to respond to messages.
Strong views about abolishing oppression, hierarchy, agency, and self-governance - but I also trust people by default and give them room to grow, unless they give me reason not to. That all also applies to technology and how it's built.