Why the hell are people I know who make ethical choices about everything - from the food they eat to how they travel to the clothes they buy - so INCAPABLE of doing that for the tech choices they make?
For goodness sake: Threads is owned by Meta. That ALONE is reason enough to not use it. And there ARE alternatives!
@jon This post deeply resonates. I care so deeply about tech etics that I launched a business to increase digital literacy and help people understand the threats posed by misaligned AI. As a new business in a new field, I did not have access to the breadth of sector research to inform my business plan and made the misguided assumption that the public would be very interested as tech touches almost every aspect of our lives. 🧵1/2
@jillholl oh solidarity 💪 It’s a damned hard one to crack. Somehow the “we use what works” persists so strongly. Sure, a Volkswagen car worked, albeit with fraud against the environment built into it. We need people seeing the ethics of tech too!
@jon Most people have limits on how much they are willing to sacrifice. Giving up a burger or a holiday is a lot easier than potentially giving up the last online contact with distant family or friends. If one is moving from Twitter because it's a nazi stronghold, moving to Threads might be a better option than Mastodon, for example, because a lot more existing Meta users will already be on there. Also, in my opinion, Dorsey owning Bluesky is enough of a reason not to be on there either.
First, let me say right off that I am one of the online habitues (maybe even addicted to being online), so what I'm about to say applies to me as well as to everyone else:
I think it would be better to not use social media at all. I think social media has proven far more destructive than positive.
Want to stay in touch with people? Use the phone. Write a letter (some of you may be too young to remember "letters"). If you must use tech, there's Skype.
@CaseyL No, actually. I need to separate my own experience (generally positive) from society’s (seems much worse). Amazing - and really unlikely! - friendships have been forged on these networks. And I treasure those!
@jon
I agree with the sentiment, but bear in mind that all of us make ethical compromises all the time. We can't be too critical of people who are making an honest effort, but whose lapses in ethical choices don't happen to match up with our own.
Would it be better for them to make a more conscientious choice in social media platforms? Absolutely and it's worth making sure they're aware, but that's about all you can do.
It's Dorsey's baby. He's still on the board and heavily invested. Not taking an active, day-to-day role doesn't change that.
Even if you can somehow overlook Dorsey's unethical history, he has used Blsky to push RFK, Jr. So, it requires a leap over ethical consideration to dismiss his role there.
FWIW: I'm with you on your essential point. It's just incredibly important to me to be as consistent as possible with my ethical principles ... thus, Blsky is not an option.
@VirginiaMurr@NatureMC This is far too easy. I’ve spent a hell of a lot of time assessing Bluesky, and have written a lot about it. I’m not entirely reassured YET. But if they do all they have in their development plan - and that means you can start your own instance - then it’s ok. The “it’s Dorsey so don’t trust it” is not the whole story.
I think we (respectfully) diverge on our definition of "ethical."
Where you and I both condemn Meta out-of-hand because "it's Zuck's so don't trust it" ... I also put Dorsey--the guy who fully supported Musk's takeover at Twitter and, importantly, profited from it--firmly in that category. Clearly, you don't.
I'm (genuinely) glad you take an ethical approach to your decision-making (really wish more people did so). We just disagree on what's ethical when it comes to Dorsey.
@VirginiaMurr@NatureMC We KNOW Meta behaves badly, and know Zuck is controlling how Meta behaves. We neither know how much Dorsey controls Bluesky AND if they decentralise as they state they will, we might be ok. I can see no even potential path to Meta being ok.
On our point of contention: I learned long ago that passivity toward bad past behavior is support for the same behavior in the future. Dorsey is a bad guy. He's a profiteer who was happy to allow Twitter to become what it is--regardless of the societal damage. I won't be part of supporting a project that will give him even the appearance of being successful (which is what will happen if Blsky succeeds). His harmful behavior is not okay.
@jon@VirginiaMurr@NatureMC That "if" is carrying a staggering amount of weight, especially when there's already an alternative that is and always has been decentralized instead of just promising it in the future. Is there an argument for why Bluesky is actually better than Fedi?
So, that's the ethical trade-off for you. If you can have the functionality you desire in a federated system, then you're willing to overlook Dorsey's past behavior.
Those of us pushing back on the ethics of supporting Dorsey would not make that trade-off.
For me, joining Bluesky over Fedi because it has better tools is a bit (but just a bit) like leaving Twitter for Truth Social because Truth Social added an edit button.
@NatureMC As stated: I’m not reassured completely yet. But I’m reassured enough to have a presence there for now. But likewise I can understand not being there at all.
@NatureMC Sure. There’s a big grey area. BUT using Threads is obviously bad - it’s owned by Meta, there are alternatives, there’s little network effect because it’s new. Bluesky or LinkedIn are for different reasons more complex.
@jon people are lazy. Practicing ethics is tiring and - sometimes - takes extra time and money. People also aren’t informed. And that’s also a big part of the problem.
@jon but mastodon is made by russian state actor, now everyone get to spy on your freedom instead of just zuckeberg :(.
why is AGPLv3+ the breaking point for you.
@jon you voiced concern that using proprietary software is bad compare to using open source fediverse software. I asked if you've thought about data ownership, that instead of one company owning your data, you share the data with everyone for free. This seems bad, because you become a product for everyone without thinking about it, instead of just being a product for The Man.
@jon 💯
...and don't tell me Mastodon is complicated because you have to choose an instance and figure out the rules and maybe even pay a bit.
People have no problem to choose the perfect online shop instance to buy their Christmas gifts and just pay for everything they feel they need and somehow they can alos figure out social rules when entering kindergarten, school a job and the like. 🤷
I guess the real problem is that there's too little drama over here.
@brar@jon This analogy might not make sense, but hear me out - everyone in the US manages to navigate our complex tax and healthcare system, mastodon is really a piece of cake in comparison. I think people are smarter than we give them credit for
@brar@jon I will say though, when I joined I couldn't find even a half baked description of how Mastodon works, and it wasn't until after joining that I realised that what instance you're on is actually largely irrelevant to your experience. Mastodon really could do with a "for dummies" guide for those of us who don't research social media variations for fun 🤷♀️
Add comment