doom_and_gloom

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I think we’re talking about two different things here.

I’m talking about the people, and judging by your use of ‘ironic’ I think you are referring to the term ‘Dark Brandon.’

When the cultists have apoplectic fits, I assure you those fits are not a joke.

Have you not met the Cult of Dark Brandon?

Thankfully not all Dems belong to it, but it’s a real cult of personality and unfortunately many of them are terminally online.

eta: look - they’ve arrived! hurry up and pretend the political spectrum doesn’t go further left than fascist! lol

Don’t forget, this is a publicly traded company.

All info from them should only be considered PR until verified through strict testing, which is difficult because it is a black box.

deleted by creator

Does the rooster have a GoFundMe? I’d like to support their heroic commitment to the people.

I saw you mention that you were working on this - props for getting it out so quickly!

Web 3.0 is the semantic web, and Web3 is the decentralized web. Those are essentially the definitions in their simplest terms.

I see some people considering these as separate things, but I never saw it that way. I’ve always felt that what we call Web 3.0 became the framework and foundational ideals for what grew into Web3.

Web 3.0 said, “let’s make everything machine-readable. let’s create parity between the physical and the digital.” The goal being to digitize the offline world so as to facilitate using the digital to support the physical.

But how do you do this? The more centralized a technology is, the less exposure it has to the wider world (with scale working to counteract the effect until a certain point). On the other hand if you decentralize the technology you can give it to everyone and let it be everywhere, and then use the decentralized network as the summed total potential for the platform.

Web3 is developing into this kind of technology. People started simple, recreating currencies like we use but digitally and decentralized, and then built ramps so that they could be converted to fiat and other goods and assets. Then the cloud storage concept was translated to a decentralized framework and we got IPFS. Then the currency tech was modified so that non-fungible assets could be delineated. This tied together blockchain and IPFS as a storage solution to allow blockchains to overcome bandwidth limitations.

Now we have people working on things like linking house titles to NFTs. Regardless of the how this would be used, I find that this is directly relevant to Web 3.0. More and more real-world objects are becoming digitized and machine-readable. Of course there are weaknesses in our current solutions: Lack of two-way functionality, limited decentralization of many databases & code, immature incentives for maintaining data integrity, limited polling ability for many data sets, and so on. But just because it isn’t perfect, doesn’t mean that it isn’t the semantic web. Web3 is what Web 3.0 looks like when it has come to life.

This causes me to consider the criticisms of Web3 in regards to Web 3.0. Some resistance is clearly due to the natural friction of new technologies being adopted by society. Some of it is also political, though - crypto and IPFS are often associated with the far-right, for example. Some of it is memetic transfer through social interactions which extends the discussion into communities that aren’t clearly identifiable stakeholders. Some comes from the authoritarian mindset, since these technologies enable dual power that is often discussed in the context of undermining states.

The criticism that I finding missing on Web3, is the Luddite criticism. We hear a lot of fear about AI making our jobs redundant. However I haven’t seen that same economic anxiety expressed around Web3 yet. Instead the major discussions (in terms of socioeconomic factors) seem to reflect a focus on “scams” and the idea that cryptos are “lottery tickets.” There also seems to be some schadenfreude, often targeted at the perception of well-to-do individuals investing their excess wealth and losing it quickly. But no objection from workers worried about becoming redundant. I do think the technology makes that possible in the big picture.

deleted by creator

here is anarchists, kind of the opposite of communists

I’m going to have to raise my hand here, because I’ve got a stake in it as an anarcho-communist.

Anarchism and communism are extremely related ideologies. The anti-authoritarian forms of communism are literally referred to as anarchist, and anarchist communists are one of the largest groups of anarchists.

And this goes back to the start of communism - the term libertarian was brought into use in the 1850s, to differentiate from the communists who thought a violence-wielding vanguard and dictatorship of the proletariat was the best path towards communism (its usage is synonymous to anarchist). The end-goal communist society as described by Marx is an anarchist society - without nation, class, rank, or religion to divide the people. But unlike Marx the libertarian/anarchist wing generally believed that this society could not be brought about through coercion.

Your second bit is exactly the case. The copyright protects artists here, and Japan doesn’t care about indie artists. The megacorporations will benefit more from AI than they will lose out from it.

It sounds like you’re familiar with Japan, so I’m guessing you also know what the political climate is there. This makes a lot of sense.

Piracy is always justified. The issue is with private property rights, which is further exacerbated by their lack of updates in the digital era.

Artists shouldn’t be dependent on distributors. Artists should be supported because they are artists and our society needs artists. Artists deserve to live and thrive whether or not they are successful, just like all people deserve.

We need to decouple the profit motive from every aspect of life and the human experience. Piracy is one such decoupling in action. It is an attempt to live by one’s own ethics instead of a corporate ethos that dictated to us, even if that is not directly the individual’s motivation.

People will say that piracy hurts the creators. But it really hurts capitalism, and capitalism then passes the pain on to the creators to disincentivize change. Alternate modes of consumption exist, but they would cause a collapse in the power/economic hierarchy which is unpalatable to those on top.