- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://europe.pub/post/372863
cross-posted from: https://metawire.eu/post/61363
The right-wing billionaire’s platform has recently lost about 10 percent of its European user base.
You must log in or register to comment.
Just a reminder that politico is owned by the Axel Springer group which is a real force of bad for Germany and Europe. Their media campaigns often try to push the public opinion in a right wing conservative direction.
Their biggest shareholder (35%) is KKR (an American global private-equity and investment company) that use the might of the media group to sway the public opinion against climate friendly actions/policies.
They’re all going to bluesky because for some reason as soon as social media gets involved, the wonderful human ability to pattern match just gets switched off.
For most people it’s unfortunately just “is it like Twitter” - both in terms of accessibility and algorithmic content suggestion.
I think a sad part of this is due to people wanting that vapid dopamagic response the algorithm provides.
Is it bad for us? Yes.
But addicts are going to addict 🫤
I know lots of people who made a fediverse account easy enough, but just end up back on the algorithm platforms as there’s no effort required for discovery.
For the longest time there just wasn’t enough activity so you’d get bored and stop checking back. There’s enough people now that this isn’t an issue anymore.
Small chances for now, but let’s keep growing small communities here. People need to get tired of Instagram and centralized algorithms to switch to fediverse
I’d love it if the fediverse could have its own algoithms as long as theyre open sourced and made ethically, like they shouldn’t mess with peoples mental health or cause social media addictions
Yes. People don’t realize algorithms are one of the main reasons decentralized sited haven’t taken off. Most people don’t want to spend time looking for their content, they just want to log in, laugh at funny memes and look at pretty art
You are the algorithm. It’s like going out decades ago. You didn’t have an app to tell you which restaurant, bar or pub was good. You had to go and see it for yourself. Here is the same. You see people and you decide if it’s good enough to follow them. The same with communities.
Europe doesnt want federated services, they want censorship.
Saying that oil production lowers emissions by displacing coal will be called climate misinformation, saying immigration needs to be lower due to a housing crisis will be called hate speech, using Bitcoin instead of the digital euro will be called terrorist financing. They’re already arresting people who do something as benign as retweet things, its a slippery slope.
Have you been to Europe? They have “walking” cities. You really don’t need a car to get around. My kids backpacked through Europe. The furthest they had to travel from a hostel was outside Amsterdam. 8 km on bicycles! My son just came back from Japan (I know, not Europe). He talked a lot about the “Shinkansen”. A high speed train that travels 280 km/h. They were able to travel all over Japan “without” a car.
Try to go to an anti-genocide protest in EU and see how fast you get violently beat up, arrested or get cops at your door to have “a chat”. All tose things in Amsterdam you mentioned too.
Spain is part of the EU and nobody is “violently beat up”, arrested or having a visit from the cops for going to an anti-genocide protest.
That’s a lie hasbara man.
Reported incidents resulted in serious and sometimes permanent injuries including broken bones or teeth (France, Germany, Greece, Italy), the loss of a hand (France), the loss of a testicle (Spain), and dislocated bones, damage to eyes and severe head trauma (Spain). In some countries, the use of force amounted to torture or other ill-treatment and in Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Serbia, and Switzerland, excessive use of force was used by law enforcement against children.
I know the problem with foam bullets.
saying immigration needs to be lower due to a housing crisis will be called hate speech
Yeah, that’s kinda hateful. True, it really would make things easier for EU citizens if less people were using the limited housing. But it would make things harder for the immigrants. Putting citizens over immigrants is… xenophobia.
Why waste the government’s time solving the problem at poor people’s expense, when the government could instead tax rich people more to pay for housing?
If you had a zoo would you continue bringing in animals if they had no space left to live comfortably?
Likely you would call that inhumane, you wouldnt say they were being intolerant of the new animals if they did not.
People aren’t zoo animals.
So cram them into substandard housing because they deserve less rights than animals?
You’re not offering a tangible answer here, the argument is situational similarity, not ontological equivalence.
And you think telling immigrants they’re not allowed to enter the country gives them more rights?
Putting citizens over non-citizens is called being a government.
Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreign. And fear in this context usually shows up in the form of hate.
Putting citizens first does not mean hating the rest. Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests. It’s only natural that it develops into benefits for citizens.
Xenophobia on a person level is when you see a person that you think is not part of your same origin, do you cross the street, or attack him or whatever. Of course this is not even close to being an exhaustive list.
Xenophobia on a country level is when you punish foreigners irrationally. Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.
I find it hard to find examples of country-level xenophobia. Even if the act itself may seem xenophobic, the government may want to gain popular support of their xenophobic population, which would be a reason and thus non-xenophonic.
Of course, not being xenophobic does not mean it is good. For example Israel genociding Palestinians is horrible. But their reason is that having a neighbor that claims the same land as you do is problematic, and they figured if they just kill everyone the world will forget in 100-200 years (or less) while the land will be theirs for longer than that with no revels, since they genocided them. Of course, having a reason does not mean that it’s not many other bad things (in this case, genocidal, which is worse than xenophobic).
Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests.
I’m interested in everyone’s wellbeing. Also, the government should represent its citizens’ moral interests. It should teach them kindness by being an example.
Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.
Not valid. It’s discrimination.
The results of an action being done for a reason being discriminatory does not make the reason invalid.
Almost any policy is discriminatory.
Taxing the rich more is discriminatory against the rich. Helping women out is discriminatory against the men. Ending segregation is discriminatory against people that don’t want be near people different to them. The list is endless.
I assume you agree with all 3 of those policies. Yet they are discriminatory. Those 3 policies are done because of very valid reasons.
There are very few policies that I’d say are not desceiminatory. Like universal basic income or universal healthcare. And even then, by your definition of discriminatory, those would be discriminatory. Since they would still discriminate against non-citizens.
There is no world where a person born in X country that has never left X country to receive income from a UBI policy of Y country. Unless X and Y countries have some sort of deal where that happens.
I don’t think that’s why we’re having this conversation. Seems like you’re talking about technicalities and I’m talking about values. I don’t think we can have a conversation like this.
This specific technicality is important for your point though.
I’m gonna explain my reasoning so you can choose whatever you want have a conversation about.
Your claim was that putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
My point is that putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of a state. And furthermore, that it is a good thing.
Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and that we should avoid it.
If both of our statements are true. The natural conclusion is that we should have a stateless society. I don’t think that a stateless society is a good thing. Therefore I’m trying to find a flaw in the argument. I think that the flaw is that you are wrong. So I have to have a conversation with you about why I think you are wrong.
If you are wrong, it must mean one of these statements are wrong:
- Putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
- Putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of the state.
- Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and we should avoid it.
Since 2/3 statements are made by me, of course I think they are true. So I’m going to argue about why the first one is wrong.
The only way to proof your statement to be wrong is by first defining what xenophobia is. Which you might call a technicality, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a conversation if we don’t first agree what the meaning of the words we use is.
After defining what xenophobia is, we have to figure out if the “equation” is true: “putting citizens above non-citizens” = “xenophobia”.
I’m a communist and I think we should have a stateless society.
Don’t go to BlueSky !!! They’re not better than X. They obey to the same leaders… MONEY, GREED, AND POWER. A few weeks ago they restricted 72 Turkish protesters the access to their BlueSky accounts on simple request of the Turkish Government. So, BlueSky cannot be trusted they will secure the accounts of their customers. If Trump would ask BlueSky to block all accounts of members who are against him, they’ll do it right away.
Make mastodon more accessible then.
Which accessibility standards does Mastodon break?
Oh boy, where do I even begin:
-
Federation. People have no idea what it is, which means that they have to familiarize themselves with all these technical concepts just to create an account.
-
Servers. Most mastodon servers are locked, and you have to petition the admins to let you in, which often implies waiting more than a day. In other sites, you can create an account in 5 seconds, so mastodon is at a disadvantage.
-
Lack of an algorithm. This implies people won’t see the content they like, which means they have to go and actively look for content. Most people don’t want to spend time doing that, they just want to log in, laugh at funny memes ans look at pretty pictures.
3 is a feature to me. The “algorithms” seem to create bubbles, and I want to decide myself.
Some people want to make social media account to browse illustration or photography.
Unfortunately, that’s not doable on fediverse. You follow anyone, and suddenly your feed filled with content that you are not interested in. Example: your favourite artist also post a lot of game screenshoot, but you’re not interested in the games. You just want to see the illustration.
You can follow hashtags and also block them.
Not everything is under hashtag. Most of artist I follow never put hashtag. Hashtag also not useful in multilanguage situation, where a hashtag can mean different think between communities and languages.
-
The same is true for Bsky but people don’t complain about it there. It asks you what server you want when you sign up, etc., which is what people complain about in the Mastodon journey.
-
Most people aren’t on locked servers. By which, I mean the majority of mastodon users are on the .social instance which is the default when you sign up on the official app/site and is open to anyone.
-
Not an accessibility issue.
Are we sure that the people that complains about “what’s an instance?” don’t have an agenda?
-
I’m pretty sure Mastodon is made of algorithms, mate
-
