Also, seriously? Whenever one of y'all next tries to tell me that radical consent models of data collection and use aren't possible in "big data" and "AI," I'm gonna say "Thanks for the input Sam Altman, but I really don't know if your views on consent are the ones we'll be needing to hear today."
I don’t know who needs to hear this, but when you increase “your own” odds of catching an airborne communicable disease, you are inherently making things less safe for everyone else you come into contact with, and everyone THEY come into contact with. “Individual choice”? Not a thing when it comes to public health. @novid
things that I dislike about Mastodon
- Community safety problems not getting addressed by Gargron because they're too busy chasing popularity
- The community therefore having to try and enforce such community safety on a social level due to lacking tools, and then getting yelled at for it because they are somehow held responsible for the problems with the software (that they do not control)
- People translating claims from clueless journalists about what Mastodon is, into expectations from developers or communities to make those claims true
- Privileged folks complaining how it's just *so much work* to be considerate of others, not for a moment considering that maybe they've just been benefiting from an exceptionally easy time on large social media platforms and their current experience is more like what *everyone else* already had to deal with on every other platform
- Impossible-to-follow meta discourse because nobody has bothered to keep track of things in context
- FOSS-bro reply dudes
Not an exhaustive list but honestly probably pretty complete
Oh yeah in the US you don't usually get crushed by anvils falling out of the sky but that's because the catching anvils that fall out of the sky company catch most of the anvils and they spend a lot of money lobbying to keep the throwing anvils in the air companies legal
The throwing anvils into the air companies don't make their money by throwing anvils into the air, they're always suing each other for copyright infringement on anvil throwing processes and most of their actual funding comes from the anvil catching company, well that and stocks since everyone expects them to keep growing so long as the anvil catching company exists which is a long time because catching anvils falling out of the sky is an essential service otherwise people would get crushed by falling anvils
Also the anvil catching company's founder and CEO married his seven daughters to the incel sons of senators, which is good because his family has a long history of keeping to itself, he made his fortune inventing the anvil catching device after pearl harbor happened and he thought they were gonna drop anvils on the US
His brother started the anvil throwing company as a scheme to get Americans afraid of falling anvils
Anyway they all pay their workers sub minimum wage because they got anvil throwing and catching to be considered a form of restaurant service (which is why you tip anvil catchers when you see them though now they all work at the anvil catching centers since that's where the anvils are thrown)
But yeah that's how Americans don't get crushed by falling anvils, how does the rest of the world do it?
I wholeheartedly believe that more social sites should use 'invite trees' as their primary abuse prevention mechanism.
It doesn't even need to limit the amount of invites, or anything like that - all it needs to do is keep track of who brought in a given user. It's a minimal invasion of privacy, and allows you to eliminate large swathes of sockpuppets and spam accounts at once through their common ancestor.
This is something that startups are unlikely to implement, because it would conflict with their "userbase growth at all costs" goal. But community sites have no such constraint.
CW-boost: nlpol, strategisch stemmen
re: thoughts on forms of communication, moderation, and a little bit of meta
Also, in case this wasn't obvious: this is absolutely not an argument that "you should allow people to be friends with nazis", or anything like that. There are definitely valid reasons to shut out people over who they hang out with.
Rather, this is about that annoying gray space inbetween, where people hang out in communities that you don't want to interact with for entirely reasonable reasons, but that others might view differently for their own entirely reasonable reasons, because everybody has their own priorities and concerns.
In the process of moving to @joepie91. This account will stay active for the foreseeable future! But please also follow the other one.
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.