meta, but more general, gruber and others
It's always fascinating to watch the privileged tech dudes go "things should be open to everybody, it makes a stronger protocol" and then completely fail to answer "strong in what sense, and is that actually a good thing?", just treating the technical-achievement-in-a-vacuum as some sort of fundamental good regardless of the implications for actual people and their communities
re: meta, but more general, gruber and others
@rune This particular observation definitely isn't just limited to fascists, though
re: meta, but more general, gruber and others
@darckcrystale @rune I don't really think it's that simple - this "strong protocol" observation tends to occur entirely independently from other "survival of the fittest" ideology, and much of it seems to be based on some ingrained idea of how resilient protocols are built (which isn't even *entirely* wrong, but is missing some crucial nuance) - an ingrained idea that often seems to be passively picked up from discourse, rather than actively believed
Like, protocol resiliency is absolutely important for an open protocol, and it genuinely *is* important for many parties to be involved, but it's also easy for people (in the current socioeconomic environment) to miss that this only applies when the parties act *in good faith* and that the "more parties makes it better" stops applying once bad-faith actors get involved (whether or not the 'strong' terminology is used), if that makes sense
re: meta, but more general, gruber and others
@darckcrystale @rune Hmm, not sure I understand what you mean with that
meta, but more general, gruber and others
@joepie91 well, fascists are historically very obsessed with survival of the "strong"