sanity_is_maddening

While I do share your deep frustration regarding how the attention scale tips a lot more for the frivolous in the face of calamity, I have to say the way you are commenting is just a good example of how to not communicate with others in behalf of a cause.

You could harness the enthusiasm of people for this cause and redirect their attention to other issues, by claiming that this is a good example in how we can indeed fight back against the many injustices that are reigned over us.

If you instead intend to belittle people into it, you’ll get nothing but what you are getting here, which is… well, you can see for yourself.

Not to mention that you might be successful in demotivating people even further.

I try to raise as much attention as I can to Permaculture and syntropy or the syntropic method, and try to promote movements such as Degrowth, Veganism, Zero Waste and I never shut up about Precision Fermentation. But there’s a reason why I don’t call myself an Environmentalist, a Vegan or a Zerowaster and so on… even though in practice I technically do practice all these things - well, not all, not Precision Fermentation because I don’t have the money or infrastructure to do it, otherwise I would, and that is why I probably can’t shut up about it. But I don’t use distinguishing labeling to describe myself that may generate a sense of otherness to others. There’s literally nothing different about me because I do or practice any single one of these things or all of them. Any person can choose to do any of them or all of them at any point, and the only obstacle might be that they didn’t have the knowledge as to how or they didn’t or don’t have time and support to learn it.

When fighting for the environment or fighting fascism (It’s literally the same fight against the capital influence that dictates these conditions because of the few that want to thrive at the cost of everything else), it needs to start with making people feel less alone in the face of it all, and then reaffirming their sense of belief that any difference that they can make is a difference worth making.

You’re doing quite the opposite here. And believe me when I tell you this. Because I am on your side. Even your feeling of anger and resentment is one I share when seeing the apathy and complacency in the people around me everyday. I just learned my lesson that the pessimistic attitude and outbursts got me nothing but alienation. And from time to time I still need someone to do the same for me as what I am doing here for you now, someone needs to snap me out of all the rage and loathing because it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what I want to happen in the world.

I apologise if my very long message feels condescending, or if it makes you feel like telling me to go fuck myself. If it does, remember this… I’m on your side. I really am.

Notice that my comment was meant as a compliment to him. And a dig to myself for not allowing the belief that this might just be a decent person. That was the joke. That we are almost all conditioned to have a pavlovian level of reaction towards politicians, in which they speak and we doubt them immediately.

I know two people that are members of political parties and they are genuinely two of the most decent people I know. But at the same time, they are not raising ranks within their respective parties. Which are also not the biggest parties to begin with. I don’t doubt that there are decent people that are trying to be decent politicians. I just think that the capital influence and its respective interests don’t usually allow these decent ones to reach actual positions of power and they even get actively placated as a result of their integrity hindering the consolidation of that very same capital influence.

What’s this?? A politician in a position of power taking a stand on a principle with integrity?? Especially these days?

How did he sneak in?

They’re usually not allowed in the establishment.

Hmm… Suddenly I can’t trust him anymore. That’s how fucked I am with the political class. Like, immediately it just pops “what’s his angle besides some PR glow?” - that’s where my mind goes instantly.

It’s exhausting…

I understand your tempered position. I really do.

But allow me to go on a bit of a rant here…

All the big tech companies in Silicon Valley have aways been heavily subsidised by the U.S. government without the U.S. taxpayers having any stakeholders’ position afterwards. These should have always been partially within the public owned infrastructure given how they were funded by the public. Amazon is probably the most ridiculous case in the world in how long they weren’t profitable and remained subsidised by the government to even be able to exist.

So, in regards if FOSS should be tax funded… yes. Because of the very reason I just mentioned. All big tech was and still is tax funded. With them taking even more money from people as costumers after already having taken money from them as taxpayers. While also just selling everyone entirely as a profile to get ad revenue from or as a surveilled citizen to serve on a platter to whichever government they want to influence further. This is insanely corrupt as a system. It should’ve not been allowed to even establish itself.

I think everyone who supports FOSS and open protocols is very aware of the pitfalls and uphill struggles to implement them against the current system. But I find that the general apathy and the further complacency of the general public is the true paramount adversity.

When you say “this is me being a realist”, it is you accepting the reality that was imposed onto you by the people who are benefitting from its’ imposition. Even more than the typical manufactured consent of capitalism, this is enforced submission to those rejecting the manufactured consent. Because from the rest of your comment, and the fact that you are here on Lemmy, you clearly do not consent to this reality, but you’ve accepted it as an inevitability. Which it isn’t, as we are not in the grounds of that reality having this exchange right now.

Taxpayers should fund FOSS and open protocol software because it protects them long term. One quick example would be how to this day nobody can close protocols on email and how anyone can create their email and host the server if they so desire. It obviously requires skill and knowledge, but if one has them, nobody can prevent them from doing it for themselves or even others if they so desire. This is an absolute insurance that the system can’t dictate one’s individual terms.

And while the Fediverse may be very small in comparison to the general establishment, it is large enough as proof to present anyone who doubts that there is a way to get back to the true promise of the internet and that we can indeed get back our sovereignty from the conglomerates that destroyed that promise.

And the political winds can change in whatever direction they may, it doesn’t matter, as it can’t and won’t destroy the resiliency of the concept. I just joined piefed.social after the Lemm.ee shutdown, and it doesn’t matter because this is a resilient concept. And that is also the reason it cannot be contained or controlled by anyone over anyone.

Sorry for the very long reply. I hope I wasn’t as annoying to you as I feel I am being. If so, I apologise even more.

Cheers.

Oh, thanks. That is very good news.

In regards to Meredith Whittaker and Signal… If I remember correctly when I read that rumour, it was in regards of the push that the EU has going on for Message Apps to open their protocols.

Delta Chat for example, already has open protocols with emails. But there’s no allies joining in on the message app front.

As one would expect, Meta is fighting this with WhatsApp and Messenger. The fact they don’t connect both of these, with them being within the same company tells us all.

But I haven’t been following this as closely as I probably should. So don’t know if that Signal rumour is remotely true.

The EU push for it is true though. But if they’ll manage to enforce it is another conversation entirely.

Yeah, I think the same. But if they work towards federation, they’re at least on the right side of things. Unlike Meta, X and most of Silicon Valley.

Good. That means she actually cares enough to go for other possibilities. I’m also certain that there’s at least a portion of their supporters who would crucify her if she wasn’t also on Bluesky.

By the way, do you know if BlueSky is open to the idea of federation? As anyone heard if there’s interest in it?

I read somewhere here on Lemmy someone commenting that the CEO of Signal Meredith Whittaker was inclined to be a part of the push for open protocols as well. Don’t know if that is true though. Didn’t seek to verify it.

But I always want to know who does support the good fight for what the internet is supposed to be.

Yeah, I agree that with the people with larger numbers of followers there’s an inherent fear of losing relevance.

But surely there’s a sunk cost fallacy at play as well. Especially when I see no effort of these people to build a lateral following in alternative platforms. They can use that same volume of followers to platform the alternatives and pave the road for both themselves and others to find a viable way out. Without that effort in sight, I’m forced to question their intelligence or their intentions. Or both simultaneously.

Having said that, I still can’t justify the ones with no great following that decide to stay.

I know people probably think that they’re taking some level of “warrior keyboarding” right to the other side’s doorststep. All in behalf of raising awareness.

But…

these are not FOSS platforms with no algorithmic reinforcement for engagement. Precisely the opposite. So, all that people do is maximise engagement, and with that raise profit margins for the very people they’re trying to “take down”, and who can control what is visible and what isn’t from the get go.

If all these “nobodies” like myself decided to delete their accounts in these platforms and move on to the FOSS alternatives, and if we all continued to seek legislation to continue to open protocols online as the original promise of the internet that was taken from all of us, then people like Elizabeth May would have to leap as well, as the numbers that made them relevant would be gone elsewhere. And with that, these closed gated platforms with their shitty algorithms would be left in irrelevance with a user base akin to the size of something like TrueSocial. Given their current expenses they would be forced to downsize or file for bankruptcy.

This is the only way to fight conglomerates and their grip.

Doesn’t matter if it’s social platforms, digital services, supermarket chains, fast food giants etc etc

Boycotting accompanied by alternatives aligned with decentralisation and further legislation to insure sovereignty for everyone everywhere.

Absolutely.

I can’t fathom what the hell are the justifications that people will fabricate to keep themselves there. I mean, I understand what the Neo Nazis, incels, Maga and so on are doing there. But everyone else? It has to be morbid curiosity at this point, addiction to rage or something like that. Maybe they want to get acquainted with the new Grok AKA the self-named “Mecha-Hitler”… Urghh

I actually had a Mastodon account for a while, but I never got into the microblogging thing. It’s why I never liked Twitter either. Just isn’t my jam I suppose.

But I’ve started to notice some small companies and newspapers having the mastodon link on the bottom of their websites and that makes me glad to see it.

Yup. The point is always to extort more. It’s literally the basis of racketeering. I guess they do really need to check the definition of racketeering. I don’t they think they know what’s the name of the game they’re in now.