Funny thing, in ISO 8601 date isn't separated by colon. The format is "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+hh:mm". Date is separated by "-", time is separated by ":", date and time are separated by "T" (which is the bit that a lot of people miss). Time zone indicator can also be just "Z" for UTC. Many of these can be omitted if dealing with lesser precision (e.g. HH:MM is a valid timestamp, YYYY-MM is a valid datestamp if referring to just a month). (OK so apparently if you really want to split hairs, timestamps are supposed to be THH:MM etc. Now that's a thing I've never seen anyone use.) Separators can also be omitted though that's apparently not recommended if quick human legibility is of concern. There's also YYYY-Wxx for week numbers.
In many of them but not all, because it’s become convention and has been enshrined in their documentation policies. cGMP just requires that your quality management system has a policy in place that specifies how to document the date, and when exceptions are allowed (for instance, data printouts where YYYY-MM-DD is often the default).
It’s also the reason some labs require you to initial/date every page of printed data, and some only require you to initial/date the first and/or last page. I’ve seen FDA auditors be okay with both, as long as you can justify it with something like: our documentation policy defines the printout as a copy of the original data, and the original data as what’s stored on machine memory with electronic signature; versus: our documentation policy defines the original signed/dated data printout as the original data. In any case, it still has to follow 21 CFR part 11 requirements for electronic records & signatures, where the only date predicate rule example they give is 58.130(e), which itself is broad and only applies to non-clinical lab studies. It’s notable that the date format 21 CFR 11 itself uses is actually Month D, YYYY, with no zero padding on the day.
And if you don’t have IQ/OQ/PQ documentation showing how you locked down and validated the software’s ability to maintain an audit trail you can’t even use electronic records (or signatures).
Had a coworker who used MMDDYY with no dashes. Unless you knew it was very hard to figure out, since it could also just be a number that happened to be 6 digits, too. At least YYYY-MM-DD looks like a date generally.
“I can reuse this old function if I just monkey-patch this other class to work with it, no one will have any issues understanding what’s going on”
Edit: Thought this was the programmerhumor community. For context: A monkey-patch is when you write code that changes the behaviour of some completely different code when it is running, thus making its inner workings completely incomprehensible to the poor programmer using or reading your code.
Lithuania is one of the Baltic States, conveniently squished between Russia & Belarus to the east and the sea to the west. Across that sea is Sweden. You’ll usually see three countries be the parts of this set. Lithuania is the southernmost of these three.
(This doesn’t consider the separator) Cyan - DD/MM/YY Magenta - MM/DD/YY Yellow - YY/MM/DD The other ones are mixes of those two colors, so e.g. the US is MM/DD/YY and YY/MM/DD (apparently).
Also just noticed I didn’t attribute this picture, I’ll edit my comment.
We are ridiculously inconsistent in Canada. I’ve seen all 3 of the most popular formats here (2023-11-22, 11/22/2023, and 22/11/2023) in similarish amounts. Government forms seem to be increasingly using RFC 3339 dates, but even they aren’t entirely onboard.
Huh, I’ve never noticed how much bloat was in ISO 8601. I think when most people refer to it, we’re specifically referring to the date (optionally with time) format that is shared with RFC 3339, namely 2023-11-22T20:00:18-05:00 (etc). And perhaps some fuzziness for what separates date and time.
YES! I wish more people knew about RFC 3339. While I’m all for ISO 1601, it’s a bit too loose in its requirements at times, and people often end up surprised that it’s just not the format they picked…
This kind of gatekeeping and elitism is bad for Lemmy and for FOSS.
It makes this community a less welcoming place and leaves new folks with a bad first impression. Much better to be welcoming and let people learn/see the benefits of FOSS at their own pace.
100% agree. Going “haha, aren’t I COOL for NOT using this one popular app or software!?” contributes absolutely nothing and actively makes the community uninviting. I’m all for FOSS, but if a closed-source app is better than the FOSS options, I ain’t gonna knock on anybody for using it.
Also why even use an app outside of accessibility reasons? Been using Kbin on a mobile browser and it’s been a pretty good experience.
This drives me nuts. I like Chrome. It’s simple, it’s fast, the extensions I want run on it (for now), and I love the Google Account Sync because I have an Android phone. This greatly pisses off people for whatever reason, despite the fact I’ve never had a bad opinion about Firefox and love what they’re doing too, and I never criticize anyone for choosing Firefox.
As with everything open source communities need nuance and understanding, otherwise they start to feel like cults.
For whatever reason? They’re trying to DRM the internet lol. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion but there are some pretty big reasons to be mad at Google on a good day. Nobody should take that out on you but I understand the frustration. People letting things slide because it doesn’t bother them specifically until it’s too late is how everything keeps getting worse.
There’s no denying that WEI is evil. It may in fact be the feature that kills the Chrome Browser and gets Google fined into poverty.
But from a user standpoint; I get it.It Just Works. That polish built into Chrome that allows users to sync their browsing sessions across machines? It’s absolutely critical and required.
The FOSS community has this weird habit of requiring it’s users to make sacrifices to meet it’s values. Where that doesn’t harm the user, their workflows or their convenience in general; users are typically more than happy to do so.
However; A lot of FOSS and FLOSS projects tend to take ridiculous stances against certain kinds of polish features and will REFUSE to implement them no matter how many people ask. In my opinion; if you want a software project to succeed and overtake massive competition; that’s just stupid. Especially when it’s as easy as forking a repository and baking the “Controversial feature” into the user-friendly fork version.
If you want to provide a core piece of software and all; sure! Please do that! But a lot of projects don’t, and won’t spend any time on user experience at all; and any kind of work on the UX arises because something is inconvenient for the devs.
Worse is that oftentimes; the polish features that are being blanket denied and intentionally omitted from the software are in fact not that complicated to implement in a manner that runs consistent with the values of the FLOSS community. Sure; that means that perhaps you do have to host a lot of things yourself to make sure that you truly retain control over your data; but that’s actually pretty easy to learn how to do.
I do understand the limitations of the average FLOSS project. Unfortunately; a lot of FLOSS and FOSS devs are very quick to decide that they know the best, and will frequently and often refuse to listen to the user. That’s not better. It’s worse. At least when a user is a customer, they have some degree of influence and can exert some small force on development priorities. In the FLOSS community; you can donate every cent you have to a project and it does not necessarily guarantee that you will get a say, or even one request, fulfilled. For some users; that is not better, it is worse.
We still have a long way to go before we reach a society with the maximum amount of balance between beneficial qualities, and none of the negative qualities, of socialism and capitalism.
firefox also has sync, better even than chrome you literally have a button for checking out what you browsed accross all devices, you can send tabs from. one device to another
I love Linux. I love the flexibility it gives me and I enjoy tinkering when I feel like it and having something rock solid and reliable when I don’t. I don’t game on the PC, so this works out great for me. However, my use case isn’t everyone else’s, and part of the idea of giving people freedom to use their computer the way they want is accepting that sometimes they want to use their computer in a way that you don’t like.
Maybe that means using a proprietary operating system. Maybe it means using a search engine that you don’t like. But that is what works for them, and sometimes I think the open source people operate on the fallacy of “there’s two types of people, those who use FOSS and those who haven’t found FOSS yet”, and it’s just so obnoxious.
You think people go nuts when you tell them you prefer WIndows? Wait until you see their heads spin when I tell them that while I use Arch Linux, I also use Google Chrome, Telegram, Spotify, and Discord…
As much as I adore FOSS and hold it near to my heart; Most FOSS software just doesn’t have a lot of polish. That isn’t a fault; but some of the zealots take it that way; and that last 5% of polish is sometimes required, and is absolutely critical to some users’ workflows.
I hear you. I am an Arch user as well but my primary browser has become Microsoft Edge. My preference would be Firefox but it has lots of problems, especially with some of the video conferencing apps I use for work. I am in Outlook all day as well ( on Edge ). Spotify is certainly in the mix.
I use Linux as my daily driver, yet I 100% believe Linux is overrated. It’s great if you’re willing to put in the work to get it working well, or maybe if you have someone else to do all your tech support for you, but it’s just not a good option for the majority of people.
I hate when people keep trying to push it on Windows users, especially when they go on about how “easy” it is. It’s not. And doing that will get people to try it out with high expectations and then get disappointed when they try it out and that’s not the case.
I honestly feel like people who say this stuff either haven’t tried Linux since 2008 or went straight to Arch.
I use Manjaro as my daily driver and I never need to fix the system. It really does just work, and these a bunch of disyros out there that do.
The only thing you might find terrible is trying to run windows programs on Linux, to which I say: dual boot! Even with all the progress Proton, Lutris etc. have made, it’s still way easier to just boot into windows on the occasion you want to play games or whatever.
I switched to Linux last year, and I used Linux Mint, which people say is the easiest, and then KDE Neon which I’m still using now, which is definitely way better than Linux Mint but it’s still not easy. I’m fine with it, and I personally prefer it to Windows, but I could never imagine my parents or my friends trying to use it without help.
Linux fanaticism drives me crazy. I’m definitely not saying this is true of everyone, but the very nature of Linux seems to attract many elitists who are against unified vision, accessibility, and the unfun amount and types of work required for testing quality and compatibility. The result is that for the foreseeable future, desktop Linux is a mess for everyone, and unusable by the masses. And while I’ll get downvoted for saying that (and for saying the rest of this), I feel like many Linux fanatics secretly like that “normal peasants” can’t effectively use Linux.
I will take some corporate bullshit that works, over only-half-working FOSS any day of the week. And I’m not shitting on FOSS itself. I’m just saying Linux is a disorganized and unfriendly mess. I never did get any sound whatsoever working on my i7-6700 and MSI gaming motherboard in Ubuntu, no matter how long I screwed around with Linux. And that was just to start. I wanted to love and use Linux, I really did.
Lastly, I just want to say I’m super happy with the other responses from Linux fans in this thread. They seem to understand that Linux is overrated, isn’t for everyone, doesn’t always work, and that Linux-pushers can be obnoxious. I super appreciate that understanding, fam.
I had to leave the Linux memes community because I swear nearly every post was shitting on Windows. Yes, I get it. Windows isn’t all that great. But, much like Ios, it just works for what I need. And I haven’t had any issues that weren’t ny fault with it.
If the game I play most, and the number one reason why i go on my pc, works on Windows, but won’t work on Linux. Which OS is better for me?
I thought all this software war crap era was over. That was shit I cared about when I was 14 or something. Just let it herself use what they want and explain the benefits of alternatives, only if they care.
Honestly same, but I think a lot of those people are talking highly of their privacy policy, so they turn a blind eye. It’s honestly funny when you see some of them being all like "Linux is significantly better because it gives you absolute freedom.
I’d given up on lemmy because every so I had tried was unfinished and unpolished. I tried sync and finally felt like the user experience wasn’t getting in the way of content.
I’d love to support foss, if a genuinely comparable experience existed.
I’m glad to say that sync has revived my interest in lemmy.
That’s very subjective. I have yet to find a Linux desktop I like as much as MacOS, especially when it comes to WACOM drivers. The stylus response time/curve almost always feels wrong.
Also, I’ve worked with designers who can get something that looks and feels fully professional on a first pass, so it’s not just newness for Lemmy.
Don’t forget the community’s reaction to comments like yours, why down vote him if he’s stating the obvious? FOSS projects often focus so much on technical features because everyone wants to flex their code-fu, but nobody gives enough time to UI/UX. Just look at pretty much every Lemmy web frontend, fugly webpages with early 2000s look-and-feel, usually slow and/or buggy, and with little to no user feedback.
You should check out Thunder, even if you gave it a try at some point - it’s super polished and it’s gotten even better week after week. In my opinion it has the best compact mode of all the lemmy clients, as long as you don’t mind swipe actions!
I was using Thunder last week until Sync’s open beta got approved and the User Experience and the interface of Thunder is nowhere near Sync. It’s a night and day difference, and a difference that would have made me use Lemmy less and less.
Thunder is like a month old - it’s still growing and will continue to improve with the community’s help :) if you think anything could be improved, definitely shout it out on the GitHub page!
I understand that it’s new, and it is definitely the best FOSS Lemmy app out of the dozens that I used. But it has a very long way to go to achieve the same level of User Experience that Sync has. It’s not even close and I don’t think anything bar a major UI/UX rehaul could fix that.
Not OP, but I’ve tried thunder. It’s OK. Sync is light years above all other clients I’ve tried. (same with reddit as well) swipe actions? Sync is the king of swipe actions.
I mostly meant if OP was interested in FOSS :) Sync has been fine too in my short time with it today, but personally I’m still quite taken with Thunder. Excited that all the Sync fans are excited!
Yes but what about this whataboutism? And honestly I am fairly certain it ain’t as much as Bitcoin. People usually focus on 1 thing to get it done because moving to the next. I bet you try to do that at work too.
No way ads consume less power than bitcoin. Just the lights for ads probably consume more than bitcoin, not even talking about creating ads, which I assume consumes a double digit percentage of the global work force.
You assume wrong. In the UK, about 0.3-0.5% of people work in marketing or advertising, and that’s one of the most extremely financialised service economies in the whole world. No way is the number anywhere near even that high in countries where people actually work for a living.
I did a back of the envelope a few comments up. How it looks to me, just sending internet ads around the world consumes 20 times as much as all crypto mining combined.
Exactly! Blockchain and PoW are terrible but id really like to know how much time and electricity is consumed to serve ads, cool servers, train and educate people to effectively become ad engineers.
Perhaps, but you also never hear them complain about it anywhere near as loudly as people complaining about blockchains.
Yes, they’ll grumble about ads being annoying or YouTube blocking people who block ads, but the amount of power that gets wasted on this never even crosses anyone’s mind, meaning on some level, there exists agreement that advertisement are a necessary and responsible use of electricity while blockchains are not.
That’s because ad serving doesn’t set a lower bound on the electricity price. The value of crypto and the value of electricity are linked.
For the sake of simplicity I’ll just say Bitcoin.
If the price of Bitcoin stays constant (big if), and the rate of Bitcoin per watt does too, then everyone would start mining until the demand for power is so high that the price increases until it’s as high as the Bitcoin per watt.
Sure, they are unrealistic assumptions, but it’s easier to see this way that the value of Bitcoin is (almost) the same as electricity. If it were lower, noone would mine it, if higher, people would buy electricity with bitcoin for a profit until the 2 equalize.
Electricity will never be much cheaper than Bitcoin, market forces will make sure of that, causing a huge environmental impact. Ads, however, only use as much electricity as they need to operate, their amount is not decided based on how much electricity they waste.
Honestly, it never fails to surprise me when on a presumable anticapitalist forum such as this one, someone makes a passionate argument in favor of some of the most ghastly corporate practices known to man, but sure, let’s put that premise to the test, shall we?
Shall we call it a draw? Keep in mind that online advertising is a fast growing industry (and likely to continue to grow in the future), whereas Bitcoin’s power use isn’t likely to grow too much, as the above article explains. Also keep in mind that this is JUST online advertising, and completely ignores print, TV, and those digital billboards that are spreading everywhere from Times Square to your local grocery store. Think about neon store signs, illuminated billboards, etc.
Also, that’s just the cost of delivering ads to people (i.e. it doesn’t even include the cost of producing them). Think about how many people work in advertising – all the offices they occupy, the computers, cameras, and whatever other equipment they use, business flights, what have you – and I’m pretty sure the carbon footprint of the entire industry far outstrips that of crypto.
I see you completely ignored my comment. The problem is not the amount of electricity used in itself, which the estimate of 6GWh-130TWh is as precise as shooting a dart at the moon.
Crypto uses energy for the sake of using energy. The value of crypto is based on the amount of energy used to create it. It’s not valuable to society. That’s what people is upset about. Crypto provides even less value to society than ads do.
Even you said it, ads spend energy because they employ people, those people generate value.
That’s like saying we should stop heating homes because it consumes more energy than crypto mining. Hose heating improves the quality of life of people. Crypto does not.
Well I was like 25 when I took care of him for two weeks and a pretty hard partier so silence wasn’t really my thing at the time. I’m in my 40s with 4 kids so I’ll I love silence now. I’ll even stare at walls.
Well, we weren’t very keen on talking in the family when I grew up. I can’t remember if we sometimes talked while TV was muted because of ads, but when we didn’t talk it didn’t feel awkward. If anything, it felt awkward to ever talk to each other. Not the healthiest upbringing in my mind ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Same with porn. But I’m building a shake-power generator for fleshlites so it should balance out the power it pulls. Saving the earth one jack-off at a time.
Charging a hybrid car battery only takes 253.4 jerks. Pretty soon we will be expanding our charging service to parking lots across America and Canada! Most of them already have people willing to do it for you already …they were doing it there anyway… Win/win.
Powerjerk ™, we make perverts work for you!
Just roll up and say “Hey Jagoff, I need to get to x!” And you’ll promptly be taken care of.*
*Do not give them drugs to speed up the process. We are serious about our drug-free workplace.
Energy isn’t free. More power captured from jerking will increase food consumed, meaning more energy used in farming. You’ll have to brand this as either a carbon capture fapture system or as a weight loss program
Humans are incredibly inefficient power generators. I can buy 1kWh of electricity from the grid for about 18 cents (generation…transmission is extra).
I don’t think I can buy 870kCal of food for 18 cents. Certainly not a healthy source. And that’s even assuming 100% efficiency. Any high school physics student will tell you that won’t happen.
Yea the rally against block chain tech is stupid as fuck. It consumes nothing in the grand scale…do people not realize a lot of large enterprises have ~200k nodes give or take? Bigger companies can have in the million range. 200k machines is a joke.
Edit: I can see a lot of people just hate block chain tech without understanding anything tech wise lol
The nodes aren’t the issue. It’s the fact that those nodes have to expend at least the same amount of energy every single time a record is added and the larger the ledger, the more energy is needed. Blockchain is somewhat unique in that regard.
You do understand what a DB is right? Like there’s millions of them…hell right now typing out this comment has one marking it. And then you’re downloading it to read it… that’s a transaction. Except there are millions of people reading comments constantly on all social media platforms.
My comment here has more bits in it than a single transaction.
DBs are not the same as a blockchain. A DB doesn’t have to hash all previous data before it every time the DB is written to. You can read and write to a specific spot in a DB without ever knowing anything else about the DB. With blockchain, inserts have to be successive and they have to reference every previous insert to validate that the entry series is unbroken. On top of that, for things like Bitcoin, every other client also has to validate it since the ledger is shared.
There’s a reason blockchain is significant. Otherwise, why didn’t stuff like Bitcoin exist prior to it? Databases, in some for or another, have existed for decades. Blockchains are immutable, that’s why. The order of entries matters and validation is a requirement.
DBs still update their tables every time someone writes to it. And there are millions of DBs being written to every second. It’s absolutely comparable.
We’re not comparing millions of DBs to a single blockchain. We’re comparing 1 DB to 1 blockchain instance. If you had millions of blockchains, you would use exponentially more energy for the same data vs. a normal database. Updating tables is not the same thing as hashing and validating every prior entry in the table.
There doesn’t need to be. My argument is not bullshit, you just don’t understand the differences between blockchain and a standard database and are pretending you do which makes the argument impossible for you to understand.
Lol no I do, you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The amount of DBs we have alone, that’s not counting any other compute servers or even WS dwarfs all the block chain out there. This article is a nothing burger and is complete bullshit. Even the study they referenced doesn’t know the exact amount…as it points out .6 to 2.2% is their estimated use…but this shit article went with the higher numbers because it’s great for people like you who hate any tech that you clearly don’t understand.
With the electricity used to validate a single crypto transaction you could do thousands or even millions of DB queries.
Yes, everything uses electricity. That’s like saying that it’s fine if you kill one cow per day to eat its ear and throw the rest because hundreds of them are killed every day in farms.
Wasting so much electricity in such a non efficient manner so a decentralization cult member can have his wet dream of using non-government money makes no sense.
It really feels like SOMEWHERE there was a legitimate use for this for very mission-critical stuff that might need to be immutable once published and kept for posterity…
…but then it just became yet another speculative asset to make magic money that fueled stupid monkey jpegs.
The pursuit of profit benefits mankind only by the occasional anomalous accident.
The point in OP is that “blockchain” was not a new thing. The Merkle Tree was patented in 1979, meaning that it has been free for decades. Most programmers might never have a use for it but they still encounter it every time they use git (which is older than bitcoin).
So, if you’re not aware of this, that’s because it is very technical and nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.
100%. Capitalism is great until it reaches a peak where people who provide no value except in the wealth they’ve amassed are the ones who gain the most from it. You can succeed simply by being born with wealth and having no other value because other people who do have value will need you.
You don’t even understand blockchain so I’m not sure what your edit is all about. You’re comparing blockchain to a database in your replies as if they’re comparable.
When it comes to power…it absolutely is comparable…but most of you have no clue how much compute we use daily in terms of power. Acting like the block chain sucks down anywhere near the amount of power we use on even in the corporate world is hilarious…you know a lot of colos have their own sub stations right?
The only person here who doesn’t know what they’re talking about is you. If you took a standard DB (MySQL or Postgres, for example) and took that same information and stored it on a blockchain instead, you’d use far more energy on the blockchain and the issue would only get exponentially worse as the chain got bigger. Normal DBs don’t need to hash new entries or validate them against previous entries that are also hashed.
Are you dense, man? No one said that. They’re saying that one blockchain would take several hundred DBs to equal its energy use. You’re wrong and doubling down for some reason and it’s just making you look silly.
I said that genius…go check my posts…the fuck you arguing about? I literally said that the amount of DBs we have make the miniscule amount of large block chains out there look like nothing. Then you show up and say one DB isn’t comparable to one large fucking blockchain…no shit.
Yeah, people tend hate what they don’t understand. Especially when most people think think every blockchain performs exactly like bitcoin (which is proof of work). Bitcoin is slow and power hungry and would never actually be usable by the masses for everyday transactions. But it was the first and will likely be a “digital gold” for a long time
But it’s not the only one and in time everyone will be using blockchain technology. It’s so much more convenient and useful than most realize. The Solana blockchain has secured a big partnership with Visa that can be read up on if anyone is interested.
Apparently, 48% of consumer web traffic is ads.. That is dystopian in itself, that means around half the content floating around the internet is stuff the client does not request but is pushed to them.
That would put the ad industry at 4500 TWh per year. However, this is back of the envelope.
That means the ad industry costs us around 20 times the cost of crypto in terms of power. Feel free to check me because I don’t know shit about most of these things.
That said, this does not account for the entire ad industry, just the cost of sending internet ads around the world. Ads are made, ads are displayed in various media other than websites, and most importantly, ads have the sole purpose of driving further consumption, which all contributes to the societal costs of the ad industry.
Please propose a law or regulation structure for significantly reducing or eliminating advertisements. I’m serious. I fucking hate ads. I just don’t have a reasonable or effective way to get rid of them.
Edit: Hey actually I just thought of one! If the consumer is paying for the product, it can’t come with ads, including things like product placement or ad reads!
Yes, those two are the most important and shouldn’t even be that hard to push. There are many laws that were pushed “to protect the children”, we might as well finally make some that actually do protect them.
Hey actually I just thought of one! If the consumer is paying for the product, it can’t come with ads, including things like product placement or ad reads!
Make sending unrequested data like ads and trackers to web clients a crime akin to gaining unrestricted access to computers. No need for a new law, just a new interpretation on an older one.
Most jurisdictions prohibit unauthorized access to computer systems. What if we just say, “running Javascript code that implements functionality not specifically requested by the user is unauthorized tampering”.
In São Paulo, one of the biggest cities of the world, the municipality forbade by law all billboards and building disfiguring ‘decorations’ some 10 years ago. Since then, the city became much more bearable, aesthetically. Nothing special happened, everybody was happy, except a few bankrupt ads agencies. Maybe, you must be able to imagine that change is possible. However, there is this ideology, Americans seem to be so fond off, that seems to make such things very difficult.
New Jersey also banned billboards. That one is pretty easy and I vote that we should adopt that policy everywhere. It’s much harder to control digital adspace, since you can do things like astroturf campaigns and product placement. Great point though! I like that law.
Total monthly posts exploded after Spez enshitified Reddit, and is still growing steadily month over month.
That suggests that the current decline in monthly active users is primarily because lurkers who only came to lemmy after initially hearing about it on Reddit, went back to lurking Reddit.
The number of users that are contributors is still growing, and that’s what’s important.
Yep, arrived during the initial digg exodus, had tens of thousands of posts at Reddit, modded two subreddits. Closed my account the day during the protests and haven’t been back.
I’m not as active here, mostly due to a busier life but found a new home anyway.
Agreed. First they killed RedditGifts, then AMAs, then the up vote/down vote debacle, and when they took away my ability to use Relay is when I left. Screw them.
I’m a counter example. I contributed on Reddit, moderated my own subreddit with a couple of thousand viewers; couple of tens of contributors
I haven’t been back to that sub, haven’t appointed any other mods. If automod can’t handle shit, shit isn’t being handled
I have been back to other subs. There are small inoffensive places on Reddit that simply haven’t moved
I still visit those subs, still write on them, just not nearly as often
Edit to add: checking today, those subs are becoming less good. With no good app, so many of the prolific commenters don’t comment much now. I also had a reply to a 2015 comment I made. I thought stuff was auto-archived much quicker than that
I’m close to that too, but I think mine was 13 years. The weird thing that I’ve noticed is that most of the time I was on Reddit, almost no one I talked to in real life used Reddit. I struggled for years to try to get people to check the site out. Now that I left, I swear I hear someone I know mention Reddit exponentially more often. The average person doesn’t give a damn about how shitty the platform has become, because they weren’t around to see what it used to be. The average person WANTS to see ads interspersed with their cookie cutter content with stupid ass features like chat and followers. Good riddance.
I’m still seeing so much growth in new content and communities, idk if the raw number of users is the metric we even should care about. Is it the best measure of quality?
I also think a big part of it is how active users are counted. Saw in a different thread that it only counts accounts who have commented or posted in the last month. Well… I browse and vote on probably an average of 30-50 posts and many of their comments every single day, but the last comment I left was over a month ago.
I also wonder if the active user count is counting people who made multiple accounts across different instances and was therefore always massively overinflated to begin with. I have 5 lemmy accounts - one on lemmy.world when I first joined, one on lemmynsfw for happy fun times, and 3 more trying to find a different instance with the de federation policy and hoster that I wanted after lemmy.world was going through their ddos downtime issue.
I mostly lurk, too, but enjoy being around my fellow Lemmings.
The only decline I have seen as someone who mostly lurks is in conservatives who thought this was the next Voat. After the surge I saw an uptick in all kinds of people, and a lot of them I don’t mind seeing leave.
You don’t need this lil slice of the internet to be the “next big thing”, you just need a place to go to see the stuff you like.
Ya ever since everyone defederated from exploding heads there’s definitely less of them. Maybe one day they’ll create another instance. I hope they do, maybe a less transphobic conservative instance, just for the variety of people.
Long time lurker here, 99% of the time I go to post a comment I delete it before posting like ah fuck it. I’m trying to engage a bit more now there are more users.
So, following the 90/9/1 rule, 90% lurk, 9% comment, 1% create content, we are primarily losing from the 90%? That seems to be a good thing for the long-term. As long as we aren’t losing from the 1% I’d say we’re good
I feel I have better engagement here. It is still missing some more niche communities that Reddit had, and I’m trying to be active to grow them, but it has been slow.
lurkers are also not counted in this statistics. ifaik only active users who are posting or commenting are counted. so there might be more users out there who are active and just lurking and they are not counted.
Yeah, it’s plain to see that engagement is steadily climbing. The top posts keep getting higher and higher numbers and new, interesting communities keep popping up.
I’m yet to encounter the majority of issues I hear Lemmings griping about. Everyone has been pretty civil toward me. Every time my inbox blows up I feel dread, only to open it and find zero confrontation or vitriol. I’m not running into any racists, sexists, bigots, etc., and I certainly haven’t noticed a decline in content (I browse Top ~6 Hours).
I realize my personal experience doesn’t equate to these problems not existing, but I do get the strong impression that people are exaggerating greatly.
Exactly my experience as well. Sure, I don’t have infinite scroll, but I also don’t feel like an algorithm is trying to make me angry. When I get responses, they’re typically thoughtful or on topic.
I’ve been active for a month and in my opinion too many users have radicalised and extremist mindsets, but other than that it’s alright.
Going back to reddit would mean to install that unbearable app they have and having to deal with incompetent admins, so I will stay here for some time.
I can see why it’s off-putting for a lot of people though.
many users have radicalised and extremist mindsets,
I think thats the whole internet nowdays, unless you decide to exclusivelly consume cat content (and even then theres gonna be a way to jam in extremist political views by some nutter somehow).
Although i have to admit that the ones here are of a diferent breed than most, mainly tankies and people on that side of the compass (and yes they are very annoying about it).
One upside to lemmy is that ,at least up untill now, the mods and admins are very neutral and i rarelly see deleted comments (or maybe they are hidden… i dunno) and that theres genuine free speech in here, i mean if you whant you can look at my comment history, i get downvoted to oblivion most of the time but my comments are still up and not censored.
Although there is this weird thing on other instances (im in sh.itjust.works and they dont do this i know i tryied it) that delete words on peoples comments and posts, mainly slurs and politically incorrect words. Really, i seen that some months before, dont know if it still like that now with the world users, but if you type something like fa***t in .world you will get “deleted” in that word specifically irc
I don’t know how to feel about it, gives me some “spez editing the database to change comments” vibes.
I guess I would feel better to just get notified that my comment got removed.
Or is it just a displaying option based on the instance you logged in with and it gets filtered on the display side and a different instance user would still see the original?
Indeed it does, thats why i shit so much on political extremeism, it inevitably ends in censorship.
My advice would be that if it makes you feel uncomfortable (and you still whant to use lemmy), change instances, like i said, shit.just.works doesnt do that, dont know which other instances do and doesnt. I think lemmy.ml absolutelly does.
If you share a thought on a Biden/Trump thread, an Israel/Palestine thread, or another topic that attracts strong views, and your opinion is different than the hive, expect some vitriol and confrontation.
I’ve run into it while seriously looking for debate or productive conversation.
The same thing happens on Reddit, though. I think that’s kind of just the internet from now on. /r/worldnews is literally just a pro-Israel, anti-Palestine echo chamber so it’s nice to see another perspective on here. (I only browse Reddit at work not logged in for the record.) Over here, the hive mind on that seems to change thread to thread.
You mean pro Palestine? You literally can’t say “hey Hamas should be considered at fault too for using hospitals in the first place” without someone telling you that it’s 11101010% Israel’s fault for ever defending themselves when any civilian could get hurt.
It’s funny when the US does war in the middle east when a republican is president the media doesn’t even cover it. At least not to the extent we do today. That’s because Republicans are callous and could not give an ounce of fuck. The fact that people want to hold Biden to account should tell you everything you need to know about the two parties. Yes Biden sucks dick. Yes genocide is unacceptable no matter the people doing genocide. Only I’m voting along side the constituents that actually give a fuck.
And that is certainly not the GOP. They only care that it makes Biden look bad.
Sure? I don’t care about US presidents. I’m talking about how personal responsibility doesn’t exist for Hamas.
Israel is apparently completely at fault for having to attack hospitals because that’s where Hamas is choosing to fight from specifically to increase civilian death, but it’s not Hamas’ fault as well for choosing to put their own civilians in harms way for their political goals?
Fuck the both of them, the middle east is a cesspit of ancient draconian morals and ideas, and they’re constantly dragging first world nations into their ancient goat herder religion bullshit.
Sick of seeing the world on the brink of collapse and the conservative nutjobs always claiming it’s the end times and using it to justify their oppression of minority groups in other countries. Structured nations borderline fall apart every few years because a few million extremists half a globe away have had a blood feud for thousands of years.
Hamas had human shields. What is there to argue about? Should we take innocent lives to punish the guilty? Doesn’t sound like justice to me.
The world is a shit place. People are really flirting with the idea of fascism in America. Its insane but they are doing it. Americans are lucky now to have relatively peaceful lives despite corporations wanting to oppress them. Why we involved ourselves with the middle east is toothpaste we can’t get back in the tube. At what point as Americans are we allowed to bow out of the discussion? To me, it’s when we cast our ballot and its for the side that is the lesser evil. As individuals we are purposefully cut off from the reigns of power and until the people seize them again we have no choice but to keep making the humbling choice.
My only issue is the lack of small communities that get posts frequently, and yeah, duh, I should contribute, but theres only so much I can say about my transness.
One thing I miss about reddit is just being able to endlessly read about peoples experiences and stupid shitty trans memes, thats just missing here right now
Exactly this. My small Reddit communities had a few posts per day. The equivalent on Lemmy have a few per year. Still, I don’t miss them enough to go back.
I find it more comfortable to contribute to Lemmy than to other sites. There seems to be actual discussion and opportunities to learn, which can be much harder to come across on the other platforms.
When you come across a ‘user’ that almost exclusively defends one controversial politician/company/government and all of their comments seem to follow a script. Also the account is either brand new or 5 years old but only started posting recently.
That I agree with. I don’t post often but when I do it’s always very positive and makes me want to post more . Compared to Reddit where it would have alot more negative comments or would just get removed by the mods for some stupid reason. Did you know you can no longer post on r/buildapc about asking for suggestions on building PC’s ? What’s even the point anymore?
For me Mastodon is still growing and getting more interesting, with more and more formal institutions joining (newspapers, NGOs, government institutions etc.).
That’s just not true. I’ve made comments that I thought desirve no reply but humans find a way. If there’s no comments to read the shared content just isn’t that interesting. If I see comments then the shared content must be interesting enough to justify a discussion.
Well I think you’re wrong, fuck you and your opinion /s
I actually don’t know to what extent I agree with you, but your theory certainly feels plausible to me. It reminds me of the internet adage about how the best way to get a right answer to your question is to be wrong. I can’t remember what it’s called.
Aye, cunningham seemingly meant it as the fastest answer though, which was the sentence right afterwards in that wiki entry. So maybe mr. anarchist-with-a-machine-fetish would have gotten an answer earlier if he had said it was the anti-murphy’s law.
Division gives people something to talk about. Not everyone can think of something constructive and interesting to say at a given time, but when presented with an opinion, it is trivial for most people to formulate a comment either agreeing or disagreeing with it.
It’s funny how despite social media becoming very normal, the old phenomenon of most content getting generated by a small portion of power users persists.
Have you seen the shitpost communities? Cleverness isn’t required, and in fact I think in those communities it’s somewhat frowned upon, 'cause c’mon, no polishing shit!
I take a break over the weekend. If I comment, I need to check the client every hour or so. I don’t want replies/rebuttals to linger without a response if it is warranted. I need to work on my car projects and can’t be bothered with online interactions whilst doing so.
That’s probably the one thing I like about lemmy that surprised me when compared to reddit. I’ve found myself commenting on posts or to replying to comments days after the initial posts, and no one seems bothered by it.
I try to make it a point to post questions on communities that have not kicked off yet, knowing that I most likely will not receive a response for a while.
Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I’ve ever heard in my life.
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don’t have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn’t mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
That doesn’t really change the overall point. People are stupid. It’s the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it’s worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it’s still a point worth considering.
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I’m sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they’d be better elployees
Sounds like you’re a duct-taper. That’s also indicative of a procedural issue with the company you work for. Shit sucks. Hyper competent duct taper usually ends up being a pretty thankless job as well. Never getting to actually fix underlying problems. Always putting out fires. And everyone just learns to expect it from you, from above and below. And it sounds like you’ve learned to expect it as well. I know all workplaces have their dysfunction, but I hope you can either come to find this one more tolerable or find a better environment soon.
It’s not just about treating current employees well. It’s also about offering enough at the hiring stage to attract more good workers. Higher starting pay and a better reputation as a place to work means more people applying, means that Methface Matt can’t compete with TypeA Teresa to get hired in the first place.
People lie in their interviews all the time. The amount of conversations I’ve had with my boss regarding people he’s hired that turned out be idiots that have started with “I don’t know what happened with that dude, he seemed totally normal in the hiring process”. We’re also restricted in what questions we can ask during interviews because asking people probing questions is apparently not fair according to our HR dept which makes it pretty easy for them to BS their way in. Then we’re stuck with their dumb asses for months before HR lets us fire them.
I didn’t say all I said most. It’s really probably not even most just a large enough portion of them that there’s always some issue going on caused by their negligence.
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won’t fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It’s the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don’t.
Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don’t own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they’re not considered the “superior” of any other workers.
if you dont raise your children to be adults, they won’t act like adults when they grow up. A revolution would mean people learning entirely new skills, like making decisions in the workplace. Most workers have no agency, theyre treated like machines, so I dont expect people raised in that society to know how to run a completely different one from scratch. Revolution is a process, it has to be built. Keep shitting on your coworkers tho, im sure its a productive activity
They can’t even learn to do the tasks they are expected to do now. Even with frequent coaching. How the fuck can you expect them to learn to make business decisions?
I used to work for a food type company and the way they decided to import and sell stuff locally was if the board of directors (the CEO who inherited the company from daddy + his siblings) liked the item. They hired someone, my coworker, to actually run the market tests and everything and then promptly ignored any suggestion she had to make about the viability of this product on the local market, instead relegating her to a busser that was in charge of ordering the samples they decided they wanted.
I remember one item nobody liked (they would give us the remaining samples in the break room like some dogs getting the leftovers), but one of the siblings liked it and they got that close to putting it on the market because of it.
I have so many stories from there. At the end of the year they would sell the soon to be expired stock to the employees for like half the price. On paper it was half (you’re just giving money back to your employer so fuck them I stole as much food as I could), but the person who actually took the money was super nice and often gave us further discounts. For them the difference was like a decimal in accounting.
They announced these sales by email with the time and date. And in 2020, the year of covid, when half the workforce was working from home, they made the sale as usual. I learned afterwards that on that morning, the siblings who owned the company went and parked their cars right in front of the warehouse where the sale took place, and filled the trunk with as much stuff as they could. Then 2 hours later the sale happened and there was almost nothing left.
Technically legal but a fucking shitty thing to do lol, your job is to have a blurry monitor and pretend to do Excel sheets and you drive a Porsche, I think you have the means to load up your car at the store like a grown adult if you need to.
Sounds like a structural issue. Your coworkers are overworked or underpaid or not informed correctly for the job they’re given. Maybe they know they’re not skilled, but the job is the only one available to them and since they need the money they’re stuck doing something theyre unskilled at. These are but a few systemic problems that might lie to reason.
Ask yourself this: If all your coworkers are bad at their job, are you just an extra special boy, or might there be something wrong going on?
same way we expect students in 9th grade to be capable of more complicated tasks once they’re in 12th grade. The nature of labor in capitalist countries is to sort out wheat from chaffe. “Good” workers become managers (although this is theoretical, ive had plenty of shitty managers), leaving the “bad” workers down at the bottom. This how the economy works right now, but it doesnt always have to. For example, unions sometimes have a probation period where you work as a temp, then join the union after a month or two. This gives you time to learn the job, before you have a say in how things are organized.
These days it’s mainly external hires, but it used to be you got promoted to incompetence. You do a job well, you get promoted. You don’t do it well and you don’t get promoted. Thus you get stuck doing something you’re bad at
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
Your coworkers aren’t incompetent. Your coworkers are just half-assing at work because they correctly realize they’re not going to get paid more if they actually tried.
So they’re just selfish assholes that don’t mind creating more work for everyone else and potentially putting people’s safety at risk? That doesn’t do anything to convince me that they should have a say in how the business is run. If they’re not happy with their pay they can go elsewhere.
Where did I say anything about helping the business? I don’t expect them to go above and beyond, when they don’t do their assigned tasks correctly their coworkers then have to deal with the problems this causes getting bitched at by angry customers and such. On top of that some things if not done properly can create a safety issue. We have safeguards in place for this but again it’s just extra work for someone else to redo it. This attitude is causing far more problems for their coworkers than it is for the business.
They’re on track to get fired so they’re not going to get paid for long. You totally ignored what I said about making all their coworkers suffer for their laziness. I thought all us workers were supposed to be in this together?
It’s not. Management gave them an extra 6 month freeze on any corrective action for not meeting their metrics while we gave them dozens of hours of extra training to try and help them get their shit together. A handful of them actually listened and are now doing okay. The rest didn’t give a fuck and are doing as bad as ever.
Yea, maybe we shouldn’t have been soft on them and built up so many shitty ones but they were trying to go easy due to covid. Won’t happen again after these ones are gone.
Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn’t put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
Than I don’t really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
As far as I understood, the company’s shares belong to the employees (“everyone gets a seat on the board”) and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
Can he be replaced at all times?
How is the compensation of the employees determined?
How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
Can employees be fired?
How can employees join and leave the company?
Do they return their shares on leaving?
Can they buy and sell their shares?
How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
Can some employees put in more capital than others?
Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
Every single job I’ve had was made worse by management. Not just worse for us, but worse for customers/clients as well. I have zero faith in management, I have complete faith in the people actually working on the floor knowing what would be best to do on the floor.
Now you ask about “not making it fail immediately” which to me gives me an impression of thinking it is still a business that needs to be grown.
I imagine a lot of shop floors would agree their time and resources were better spent elsewhere. No one needs Funko pops, I don’t doubt those workers would find something better to do
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it's so stacked against it occurring, it's effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what's stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I'm really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. "Nothing is stopping you." Yeah and "nothing" is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of "nothing". Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it's possible.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet’s is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
Peet’s had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet’s and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn’t even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.
But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.
You haven't owned coffee places. You've been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You're objectively wrong on coffee production.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.
You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you're not competing if you aren't actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you're saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.
Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
It's so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.
I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.
The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.
I don’t disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don’t want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously “What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.” is majorly hyperbolic if you’re aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you’re making now.
Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.
That doesn’t make it ethical? “Everybody’s doing it” usually isn’t a great way to explain away anything. However, you can choose how to spend your money, and if you don’t like where they source it, it’s easy enough to… just not buy coffee. (Caffeine is an addictive, shitty drug anyway)
I think plenty of people agree that if the chain of production includes slavery, it doesn’t matter if they’re not directly employing them, they’re still using slave labor in service of getting the product to market. Once again, “everybody does it” isn’t really a good reason to keep doing it. Also, acting like it “doesn’t count” and that you didn’t move goalposts just means you’re not arguing in good faith here.
I mean, that’s the rub. If you pay someone who uses slave labor to produce a product, you are inherently financially supporting slavery, even if you don’t personally own the slaves.
Sorry, it counts, you knew about it, but tried to minimize it or act like “since everyone does it” it’s okay. I call bullshit.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don't speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you're so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you're trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you're talking about.
I never said Starbucks owns the slave labor. But to ignore the influence they have is outstandingly naive. Like, do you think at all before replying? Are you in middle school and have any idea how the real world operates?
What did I ignore? You only had one or two sentences there. I replied to it and pointed out how it's faulty. You'll need to help me out because I think you're using some other form of the English language or dialogue model than the rest of those who speak the language use.
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that’s still over a third of the population who can’t even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they’re betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It’s not an even playing field, at all.
Where do they get the business owner who wants to do that? Can it happen? Sure, it has. But thats not going to happen for most bussiness operation in capitalist countries. Can workers get the money to buy out their owners? Sure. But that’s not super likely in most situations either.
I’m sure this dude is bullshitting literally every single thing he’s saying. Anytime someone makes a reasonable reply his immediate response is to demand proof. I would not be surprised if everything this person has said is a lie.
If they actually had that kind of money they would understand that unemployment is used to violently force people to take jobs that they don’t want to do. It keeps their entire system afloat and they somehow have no knowledge of it? Yeah, dude is a bootlicker
Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.
Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.
All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.
In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.
This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.
This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I’m convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.
So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother’s mementos unless you’re rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.
I’d rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother’s Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.
Inflation’s been happening since currency was created. We don’t notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.
Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You’ll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.
In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren’t there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
Well the main thing is the concentration of capital. Guys like Jeff Bezos aren’t interested in founding cooperatively-owned companies, and they have all of the money. Add in the fact that average people are very strongly atomized and prevented from forming stable social bonds, and the likelihood that you’ll get a cadre of people together who want to start a cooperative business and can also afford to do so is very, very low.
That said, the few coops that manage to exist are often the best places in their industry to work, precisely because the profits are shared more equally than in the more common private or publicly traded corporations.
I’m legit trying to figure out the logic that determined which of his posts he should delete and which ones he shouldn’t. Seems like it’s whatever was getting a lot of replies, but also some other random ones for fun?
250k is a lot of money. It was more even more money in the 90s. Its an exceptionally large amount of money to recieve for free straight from your parents.
People don’t become billionaires from working. They become billionaires by taking profit from the surplus value of other peoples work.
$250,000 isn’t a lot of money to the average person
Thats literally 5-6x the median annual income what the hell are you smoking. That is a life changing amount of money to most of the country.
they didn’t take the profit from anyone
They took that profit from the people working there. Profit is the difference between expenses and income. In order to turn a profit companies cannot pay workers what their work earns the company, there has to be a difference. In economic parlance this difference is referred to as surplus value being generated by the workers for the company. If workers were paid what they were worth then the profit margin of that company would be 0% but those people would all be paid more than they are now. Whether you think the workers are entitled to the full value of what they create is an ideological determination that I will judge you for.
2: I am aware they ran on venture capital. You didn’t address where they take their profit from now that they’ve achieved their dream near-monopoly status. That status that would have been impossible without their thousands of employees to begin with.
The average US worker has a salary of $46,800 (in 2018) before taxes. Assuming they saved everything and spent nothing, it would take over 5 years for them to make 250k. Again, this is before taxes, and without spending anything. For the vast majority of people, 250k is a lot of money.
Exactly. So you agree that it’s impossible to earn and save a billion dollars just by working hard. It requires either exploiting your workers by stealing their surplus value, or by using the market by short-selling, using hedge funds, trading through illegal offshore numbered accounts, derivatives, etc.
When you’re old enough to work you’ll sell it to whoever you can at whatever price they offer and you’ll be lucky to get annual raises that match inflation.
i wonder if the nature and specialization of your professional work is what allows you to be like that with employers, i imagine the local cashier at mcdonalds doesn’t have that kind of bargaining power
Imagine giving up a technical position for a sales position. I’m poor as fuck but I actually enjoy my work. I own my home. I get to play guitar and play with my kids. If I’d taken the sales position I was offered I’d be dead.
If I don’t take what my boss offers I will starve to death and die. That is not what I would consider a strong bargaining position. I can go to the other company that I could work at but they both work together to keep wages low. I have no power to improve my status because the system is rigged against me and every worker like me
So you are saying that as black people on average don’t earn as much as white people they just aren’t as good as them? It is their fault for the way the system treats them? I would hope that is obvious ridiculous to you. However the average person has just as much control over the capitalist system as black people have over the police state.
or by using the market by short-selling, using hedge funds, trading through illegal offshore numbered accounts, derivatives, etc.
Which is also just stealing surplus value by proxy, since return on investment is simply a share of the company’s profits, which is itself just surplus value, or unpaid labor.
If wealth were actually distributed in the US equally that might be true, but as it is it’s more than double what most Americans have, even ignoring inflation.
The average net worth of all American families was $746,820, according to the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, while the median figure was $121,760.
since he deleted it, here’s what this loser wrote:
250k isn’t that much money. Maybe to you but to the average person it isn’t.
You don’t even get how billionaires are made. LOL. They didn’t take the profit from anyone. Amazon doesn’t give a dividend.
Their wealth is based on the value of the company which is truly arbitrary. Since people are not expecting to make money from a dividend, it’s all made up.
It is why Amazon could drop in value tomorrow if people felt it wasn’t going to continue to climb in value. The only way to make money is still sell the shares.
This is ironically a poor sales pitch, unless you believe that networking, marketing, and familial wealth should be what orders society.
And I never said that 250k was all they had, and in fact being able to throw that much money at something is going to be less and less of a concern the more money you have, though I don’t think his family was “poor as hell” to start with. Unfortunately for this point, their finances at the time are not publicized that I can find.
Back then, he used a considerable amount of money to run at a loss. Nowadays, he does steal a remarkable level of profits in the unpaid wages of the employees who keep winding up in the news for being forced to piss in bottles or drive to work in a hurricane.
Yes. And it is deeply unfair in how it rewards entrenched wealth rather than giving everyone equal opportunities. That’s why socialists are opposed to it.
I’ve worked hard for what I have too. That doesn’t stop me from looking around, seeing that there are billions of people on this planet who work way harder than I do for way less than I have, and saying “this system should be changed.”
idk what communist countries you’ve been to, but if you compare for example the average Cuban’s quality of life to that of the average person on any other Caribbean island, capitalism doesn’t come out looking too hot. Most post Soviet countries are still poorer today than they were in 1989, almost everyone who has been lifted out of poverty in the past generation is Chinese, and there are literally hundreds of capitalist countries that have been doing capitalism for a hundred years or more that have remained the poorest countries in the world regardless.
The objective reality is that communism is leaps and bounds better at organizing society than capitalism can ever be, full stop.
Undernourishment in Cuba has been under 5%, and child mortality under 1%, every year since the year 2000. For Jamaica undernourishment currently hovers at 6.9%, and child mortality 1.3%.
Anecdotes are useless in a discussion like this. I don’t care what you think you saw, I care about the facts.
Stats are stats. If Cuba, even while facing a crisis in its food production due to lack of seeds, gas, and fertilizer, is still able to feed its people better than its neighboring countries, then that is a stirring indictment of capitalism.
Both of your examples link to a drop in imports as the cause of shortages, itself a symptom of the ongoing global production crises caused by COVID-19. A wealthy country like the USA can paper over a problem like that by throwing around money and credit - a small country like Cuba can’t.
Consider how Cuba’s economy could possibly respond differently to this situation if it were capitalist. I suppose they could take massive IMF loans in order to shore up imports, at the cost of “structural adjustments” that cause untold damage to future generations by eliminating the government’s mandate to run public services - but that plan hasn’t exactly worked in the long term anywhere it has been tried.
The fact is that these crises are well outside the sphere of influence of Cuba’s economy or government, and are exacerbated by American imperialism against Cuba and its allies (ie literally hijacking Venezuelan oil shipments using the US Navy). Regardless of political ideology or economic policy, Cuba would be facing these crises one way or the other, and centrally planned communism has proven time and time again that even if it’s not perfect it’s better at navigating these problems than a competitive market capitalist system is.
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won’t bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That’s the actual system I see.
Okay I said I was done talking with you but I actually love any excuse to nerd out on this so here:
The state of California has mandated compostable household and business waste be separated out and picked up separately much like recycling is already separated. This is a law that is already in effect; however, they have declined to enforce it so far. They have recently began making statements that they will begin enforcing the law and fining businesses and property owners for not complying.
Many small municipalities (and some big ones) have not even started setting up the infrastructure to do so. They’re way behind.
This means there is a captive market for a company providing those services. A potentially huge market.
Now anyone can set up a waste collection service, it’s pretty standardized, but here’s where my idea is different. A technology called pyrolization.. It mostly requires organic materials, lots of em. In essence, it’s burning without fire. The input is organic material, the output is a stable carbon-rich solid called biochar (similar to charcoal except not as flammable), and something called syngas, which is similar to natural gas. With the right machinery, the process produces energy and is carbon-negative.
The carbon-negative aspect is the selling point. Do you know how many carbon-negative businesses there are? You could probably count them, globally, on both hands. This would play EXTREMELY well in California.
Pyrolysis is not a new technology, but applying it at scale is. Currently it’s mainly in use as a way of processing human waste. There’s a company called BioForceTech in the Bay Area that has a successfully operating pyrolysis machine processing human waste, and they have machines globally that also process feedstock like wood chips and nut shells. Municipal organic waste would require a sorting machine for sure, but other than that it could use their machine just fine. And the sorting machine wouldn’t have to be as complex as those in municipal compost systems: if plastic gets mixed into your compost, that’s bad. If plastic gets mixed into something you’re just going to burn and bury, not a huge deal.
$850,000 is not enough to set something up like this on the municipal level. That would take millions. It’s enough to get buy-in from BioForceTech, ReCology (bay area waste management company that has experience with waste-gas powered trucks, and compost sorting machines), investors, and local and state government (the state has several grant and loan programs for “green” businesses, especially in waste collection).
In my opinion the biggest, most profitable market would be Santa Clara County or Alameda County, both in the bay area and both have limited compost pickup presently. But that’s a big bite to chew and I think beyond the capabilities of a new business. Something like small towns in Mendocino County would be perfect - small enough that they don’t have municipal organics collection aside from maybe yard trimmings, liberal enough that the carbon-negative aspect would play well, rural enough to have plenty of cheap land for a processing facility.
So that’s our market. We get to charge customers for the pickup, and then sell the power generated as “clean energy”. Not to mention the whole thing functions like a peaker plant. When electricity prices are low, you can adjust the output ratio to create more biochar - adding to the carbon-negative selling point (and getting some money from cap and trade). When electricity prices are high, you can get more syngas and burn it as carbon-neutral energy.
The one thing I’m not very familiar on and would need to consult experts on is the regulations involved in the “selling electricity” aspect. The regulatory burden may make that part not feasible, I just don’t know enough about it.
Those lazy commies with their limp wristed excuses like: “The reality of living under a capitalist society”. Why don’t they just eat some bootstrap stew like my pa did and die of preventable illness generating labor value for someone else?
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.
Tesla is not close to bigger than GM. They only make consumer vehicles and maybe a model of semi truck but I don’t think that’s being produced yet, while GM has been making consumer cars in addition to commercial and military vehicles for decades. They might be valued as more but that doesn’t really say anything in practical terms.
Wait…so these are your examples of people who “did something”
Do you realize that the edge every single one of these companies had over the others is the willingness to do whatever it takes to extract as much value from labor for the least amount of money, right?
You are just making the case for the complete destruction of capitalism. Only soulless psychopaths are rewarded here. Winning is not beating these people at the same psychotic game that they’re playing.
I don’t buy into that lame beta theory of gravity. You go down. If you don’t feel like going down, go up. It’s that simple. That is the beauty of jumping. I can jump as high as I want
The more you keep bringing up your insistence that you’re not raging about being called (apparently, correctly) a bootlicker, the worse you’re making it sound for you.
Crying about personal attacks after accusing me of being effeminate (because femininity bad, amirite bucko? jordan-eboy-peterson ) is really shooting yourself in the foot. You’ve already come across as misogynistic, insecure, and a stan for corporate masters that don’t care if you live or die. You’re just digging deeper.
I try to tell myself that most of the people bought into capitalism can be rehabilitated, maybe some just need to spend a few years breaking rocks to get it through their heads that other people fucking exist on this planet.
Reading your comments has made me re-evaluate that
This is the reasoning that leads to “if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them” with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose “choices” are not as unconstrained as the ones you’re familiar with.
I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with “It’s just how the world works”, another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.
Most people don’t have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that’s assuming there aren’t legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn’t because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.
That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth
so it’s not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren’t listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it’ll be just far too clear that you’re not acting in good faith.
Oh, no, what am I saying? You don’t want to do that, because that would once more point out that you’re clueless in your assertions. Now I don’t want to read any more of them. And I’m free to turn you down, right?
I can’t force someone to take a job, but I can starve them until they do. And I can make it illegal for them to acquire food in any way that isn’t engaging with my system of capitalism.
No one cares if you “buy into” anything. It exists whether you believe it or not.
The entire point of keeping unemployment at certain levels is so capitalists can dictate wages and responsibilities. It’s not a secret. Bourgeois media openly panics whenever unemployment levels get too low.
Anyway, in the very real world that we live in, unemployment is kept at certain levels so capitalists can dictate wages and responsibilities. It’s not a secret. Bourgeois media openly panics whenever unemployment levels get too low.
Yes, they are panicking because people have bargaining power to get higher wages. Are you still not connecting the dots there?
I have a skill and I am not struggling like some of my other comrades are. That does not make me blind to the purpose of unemployment or to the fact that if everyone in the world had my skill set then that would mean there are a lot of important jobs that aren’t getting done, a fact that, curiously, has completely escaped you.
No, they are concerned about having to pay people more, because that cuts directly into their own profits. They are not more concerned about inflation then they are about their own loss of profit from having to pay workers more, unless they require so few laborers to run their business that inflation does actually cut into their profits more.
Feds are increasing interest rates to increase unemployment. They directly stated that. You can Google it if you don’t believe me.
Quite a bit has escaped you and it is endlessly entertaining to me.
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like “there’s nothing stopping someone who’s born poor from becoming a millionaire”. Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there’s so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it’s almost statistically impossible. It’s so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they’re a rounding error. I don’t think you’re one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you’re not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you’re claiming is so statistically rare, I don’t believe you. And then you’re also claiming it’s common.
The system actively discourages that. It was tried in the 70s. Banks wouldn’t work with coops because they were diffrent. Other companies wouldn’t work with them because they didn’t being as high a ROI. They were more efficient and stable, but under capitalism none of that matters.
So ah… What’s the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
The western left doesn’t agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That’s a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Marxists do hate Markets though, that’s part of why Marx advocated for abolition of Money. Over time, of course, but that’s the entire point of Labor-Vouchers.
Sort of. Unlike Money, Labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use, as I already pointed out. They still act much the same way, as a unit of exchange, just without the ability to accumulate off of transactions.
Marx spent much of his time talking about the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, issues with the Money commodity, consumerism, and more. Marx liked Capitalism over Feudalism, and Socialist markets over Capitalist ones, but ultimately he did advocate for abolition of Markets, in the traditional sense.
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn’t work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
Marxists are indeed characterized by generally accepting what Marx said. Additionally, being anti-Market isn’t exactly something that “obviously doesn’t work out,” no Socialist state has developed to that level yet.
It’s very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren’t on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don’t want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan’s comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
Under capitalism automation benefits the owners (on a small timescale, they worsen the totroptf) under socialism time saving just means the population has more time.
That is why workers currently push against automation under capitalism.
If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.
Market forces on their own produce many if not all of the perverse incentives of capitalism. Only a centrally planned economy, built on a foundation of grassroots democracy, can hope to overcome those incentives by doing economic planning with an eye towards future sustainability and quality of life, rather than towards profitability.
I think the better way would be a centrally planned economy for some goods (electricity, “normal” food, health, …) and something more “free” for the rest of the market. Bread has a marked price but a PS5 doesn’t.
The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.
It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.
Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.
Within the context of one person’s career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people’s relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you’ve all done too well and it’s to “cut labor costs” while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you’d gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won’t have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it’s something much easier for liberals to stomach.
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn’t. That’s the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
Edit: “Thing bad” doesn’t broaden or deepen anything. “Thing has specific shortcomings which aren’t present in specific alternative to thing” is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
Not always, sometimes it’s just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there’s some alternative that doesn’t have those shortcomings, those aren’t useful observations, they’re pointless complaints.
if we’re talking about the input requirements of some engine to drive its load and those don’t match then “yells in thermodynamics” is an incredibly useful criticism.
if we’re talking about a project that relies on one person then discussing their mortality is an incredibly useful criticism.
in this case, the thing we’re talking about is markets and the comment youre accusing of being a pointless complaint is
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
which is an absolutely useful criticism. relying on markets to pass information is a holdover from before we had better methods to do so. the most profitable companies now use data outside the marketplace to make decisions to the point of developing enormous networks to collect, store, parse, interpret and disseminate that information. Cybersyn, the socialist version of this technology, allowed such powerful subversion of american plots against Chile that the only alternative was a fascist military coup.
so it’s not a pointless complaint, but an accurate distillation of criticism most recently offered up to the american public eye as the book The Peoples Republic of Walmart.
My comment was a flippant derision of the hypocrisy of the poster directly above it. I don’t really care about defining pointlessness, as I haven’t really cared about any part of this conversation with you.
I care about calling out hypocrisy. You read too much into my comment, and instead of letting it stand, as intended, as a directed comment toward the person I responded to, decided to interject with your opinion on pointlessness.
I repeat, opinion. You refuted nothing, you diverted from my examples to unrelated examples that used similar words. That’s called a “strawman”. The scenarios you refuted were not the ones I presented, you changed them in fundamental ways to justify your opinion.
I am not interested in this conversation. I repeat, my whole point was specifically the hypocrisy of the comment I responded to. I find arguing about the definition of pointlessness to be even more pointless than anything else.
No because I don’t give you a gift only if you give me one. It’s not a transaction. They are gifts.
…but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it’s a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can’t occur then you’re relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.
The alternative is you’re expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There’s little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.
I, a socialist don’t. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we’re slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.
Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it’s not like I expected more from the community based around memes
Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.
A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”
I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.
The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.
I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.
The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.
Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.
The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.
I’m far from an expert on communism. But the government, and especially a single person, retaining power over the state and economy is far from communism, it’s more authoritarian. Communism in it’s very base is the citizens owning the means of production, not the state owning those. This in no way is represented in China, where the state has a lot of power over the economy and owns parts of some companies, but there are still capitalists owning factories and workers working there.
But that is no joke at all. It is what every honest historian will tell you. If you take communism as it was defined by Marx (not that this would be the best system or even what I would propse, parts of it maybe) then no society actually tried that.
According to www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.
The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.
That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.
And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.
Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.
The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism economy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.)
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
They did attempt to be communist, but they failed like every other attempt will fail. Greed is basic human nature, and those who have it more than others will find a way to abuse the system, get in charge and ruin it.
I’m not arguing your other points, but this isn’t always true. Humans seem to crave respect, not necessarily monetory wealth. If you want you can read more about gift economies.
That’s funny because I do easy work for a great paycheck yet we have a harder time hiring than in my previous job which didn’t pay as well and was harder.
I’m in my mid thirties, my current job (first time for this employer) is the best paid and offers the best conditions and is the easiest one I’ve ever worked and they need to give us a retention bonus so people don’t leave for another department.
I’ll leave it at that so I don’t dox myself.
Edit: Don’t know why people are downvoting? It’s an office job that requires a high-school diploma, I’ve worked physical jobs before that paid less and where we weren’t short staffed as we are in my current job. Happy?
Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.
If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.
It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
True communism is pretty much impossible, same as true capitalism.
There have been some short-lived small-scale experiments like the “United Order”, but nothing that actually survived more than a few months with more than a few thousand people.
Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.
Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Anarchist checking in, so, y’know, bias and all that. But I’d say it’s just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I’m an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We’ve had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn’t function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it’s scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it’s scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can’t have a fully anarchist society until it’s global.
Which all just means that I’m an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯*(ツ)*/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I’m actually not. I think many approaches have their pros and cons. Anarchy sounds a lot better as a path to a classless system, I don’t disagree with Trotsky’s permanent revolution, though I am heavily against his 4th International (and to a big degree the 3rd one as well) and I think that socialism is the hardest way to make it work, but if it does, is probably the best since it prepares the populace to think in a different way.
But good for you for figuring me out when I haven’t done that myself in over 20 years I’m in politics.
As for that dick contest about communists before Marx and their books, because it is a dick contest at this point, I never claimer Marx was the first to talk about communism, or use that word. Even the manifesto was commisioned by a pre existing party namely the Communist League. A party that existed before Marx and Engels came in contact with them.
But Marx was in fact the first to bring those ideas together, from philosophy to economy to politics etc and describe a full featured system that covered it all (for his time, times changing and things adapt), which is why is the one most well known and remembered with his name attached to it. Take it further, back to ancient Greek philosophers why don’t you?
The original poster asked an ELI5 of communism. While what you say is not wrong, it’s far from ELI5. Even for someone like me who spent years reading on all that, there were a couple of things you mentioned I didn’t know about. At the end of it all there’s a reason that if you look at the history of communism most will refer to Pre-Marx and after. And a simple answer to a simple question of “what be?” has to start somewhere. I chose Marx since it’s probably the best entry point for someone who has no idea.
Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.
And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.
That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism. The fuck is that supposed to mean in the first place. For someone so intent on digging relics and using big words, you either can’t read or refuse to do so. He asked what communism is, I mentioned Marx. Go ahead and mention Aristotle for all I care. Hell I didn’t even mention Marx until you answered me.
As for the infighting you’re the one with your knickers in a bunch because I answered Marx. I am not fighting anyone and the two people that disagreed with me, it was polite and we reached an understanding while in disagreement. You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting. I’m done with that charade. Have a good day.
And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling. From Marx onwards the entire idea of socialism and communism is based on the Capital.
That’s also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism.
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
🥱
And the fact that you don’t consider communism partly an economic system is baffling
It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?
Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.
As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.
describe a full featured system that covered it all
Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.
If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).
Also you’re completely wrong about:
You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.
You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting.
Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.
That only tells me that you’re scouring Wikipedia and the Internet for surface reading to be feeding your imaginary conflict.
Marx supported free trade. That’s true. Why? Because it would hasten the economic imbalance between the classes and help create a revolution. No, he was not Ben Shapiro of the 19th century. He thought that things must get worse before they get better and that free trade would make them worse.
You also mention how he was heavily influenced by Adam Smith. He critiqued him heavily in both Das Capital and the Theories of Surplus Value.
That’s like saying Engels was a fan of Duhring because he wrote a doorstopper called Anti-Duhring. That’s plain wrong and trying to murk the waters.
As for the central planning it was first established as a method from planned economy in social states by the Soviet Union, that’s true. But its theoretical basis stems from Marx’s work and words. “To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable… It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production.” that sounds familiar? Written in Marx’s letters in 1890.
But no, I was not referring to central planning, but the abolishment of capitalist goals as surplus value, profit driven economy etc, that are most definitely based on his works. Yes, he was not the first to propose that “Oy, killing miners for scraps is bad and you’re bad for doing it.” but nobody before (to my knowledge) had done such an extensive work on the downfalls of capitalist economy and how something else could even be planned or work.
I’m getting tired of you using catchy article headlines and wiki skims to prove me wrong because you don’t like Marx. In fact, I don’t care if you do or not, or what type of communism you prefer. But stop spreading lies for the people that are not familiar with the subject.
In fact, I don’t even care much about Marx. Of the big ones to speak on socialism/communism, I much prefer Engel’s more philosophical approach than Marx’s economic analysis. I find the analysis boring.
So, just to let you know before I block you utter <bleep>, I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂
Resorting to personal attacks. Typical. Way to come up on top in an argument. Attack the person, not the argument.
And I don’t. Give me philosophy over economics any time. That doesn’t mean I don’t see his value. And how comes you’re still confused after giving me the quote already?
I’ve got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one “true” communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what “true” communism even is.
Wish it was that simple. Left is fighting over it for decades, if not centuries. Even killing each other, instead of focusing that energy against the right. And yes, it’s as stupid as it sounds.
There were no actual efforts to establish communism
Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.
This time without hierarchy wherever possible. And we’ll keep most of the capitalistic economy as is, just redistribute the wealth so that everybody is safe and happy. Cut the bullshit jobs, make produced goods more durable and sustainable, so that the last at least ten times as long, cut more jobs in producing, distribute the remaining work to all the people, everybody who wants to get a little extra can do this by working, most will. I certainly would still work even if i did not have to, even if there is no monetary benefit. Doing a job that is nice and that you like is fun, because you’re doing your part.
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
I mean I see were you are going but if they already wanted and you confirmed, like if the kid has wanted it and you are the parent or you talked with their parents, etc… it’s not that crazy.
I mean maybe I would go and make a gift card or something saying they can get it as a presen and if they are ok with it you then get it, ideally adopting of course.
Paying for something someone wants isn’t the same as a surprise gift.
A parent buying a pet for their kids is actually a parent buying a pet for themselves; the parents very well know the pet is ultimately their responsibility.
I don’t think anyone is saying to not do those things. It’s the surprise of a pet that is heinous.
Agreed. Even assuming you know the person wants a pet and can handle a pet, you’re still robbing them of choice in what pet they get. The poodle is cute and all, but little timmy really would’ve preferred a border collie.
Pretty much the only scenario I can agree with gifting a pet is if you know they want one, know they can handle one, and finally when it comes to the actual gift giving, it starts off with a trip to the animal shelter so they can pick their own companion.
just to be a bit of a devil that advocates thingies, i lost my pooch a bit ago and my family asked when they could get me a new pup. i told them i needed time and maybe around my upcoming bday. so, i think if its been discussed in some fashion… i think it okays.
but i do understand the overall point and i don’t disagree - surprise pets tend to be a bad move.
You can’t be forced to testify against yourself, but you can be forced to testify against others.
Exceptions are: Spouses can’t be forced to testify against each other. Parents can’t be forced to testify against their child and same thing vice versa.
They can, they’ll just have to find other evidence. If there’s a court case with the defendants being a married couple who both refuse to testify and there’s no other evidence, it’s essentially the same as a court case with one defendant that’s refusing to testify against themself and there’s no other evidence. Both cases will result in dismissal.
Some rulings that pleading the 5th can be considered cause for a warrant if not directly an admission of guilt.
The past decade or so has also weakened rights in regards to you having to plead the 5th directly, and of course the “War on Terror” led to the Supreme Court more or less saying “No, actually, torture doesn’t count, plus we’re going to ignore that it’s been the official position of America for centuries that Constitutional rights are human rights (for a changing definition of human).”
Taken as a whole the past couple decades have severely reduced the protections the government wants to admit the 5th offers.
You still can’t use the 5th to infer anything about the defendant in a criminal case. In a civil case, the court can take a person’s refusal to answer into account.
My layman’s understanding is that if you say you committed murder 20 years ago, but your therapist doesn’t believe you are actually a clear, present, and immediate danger to yourself or others, they don’t actually have to report it. I find it hard to believe that there would be a situation where someone could admit to something like that and the therapist doesn’t think they are at a reasonable likelihood to reoffend, but I guess the potential for the situation exists.
The link above is specific to Florida, but I’m sure that there are differences in law in different jurisdictions and probably even specifics at the federal level.
I am neither a lawyer nor a therapist, just a shitposter, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
You mean by a court subpoena? If so then you testify or get found in contempt of court.
Or do you mean what if someone is threatened/blackmailed into giving false testimony? If that’s the case then you should probably go to the police. If it’s law enforcement who are coercing you then I suppose you could try to include that fact in the testimony, but there may not be much difference in that and refusing to comply with the blackmailer in the first place, in terms of your safety.
If you’re coerced to lie under oath then I’d guess that still counts as perjury, but I doubt most judges would be mad at you for it; they’d shit fury all over whoever was coercing you.
How is it legal for them to just throw you in jail forever just for pissing off a judge? Why even pretend we have rights if that’s how the system is going to operate?
It’s illegal to lie to the court. Even if all oaths weren’t utterly worthless, one made under duress is inherently invalid. This one serves literally no purpose other than to psychologically dominate a person.
It’s just a more formal affirmation. Lots of people “promise” things they have no intention of really trying. It’s a grander gestire for grander consequences.
No it isn’t. Oaths aren’t “grand gestures,” they’re just silly. This one is worse than silly; it’s the rough equivalent of a school bully putting you in a headlock and not letting you go until you agree to whatever bullshit he wants from you, and beating the shit out of you if you won’t.
It’s a “grander gesture” (quote me correctly pls) than an informal promise with a friend. Do you consider signing a lease or a mortgage to be the rough equivalent of a school bully putting you in a headlock?
No, because I can refuse to sign the lease and I won’t get put in prison for that. Swearing a compulsory oath under threat of imprisonment in a sitiation you were forced to be in isn’t any kind if gesture, it’s just submission to coersion, nothing more, nothing less.
That doesn’t give them the right to jail you indefinitely. This system lies and tells you we all have rights, but if they can just do that forever because you insulted or angered a judge, then you need to realize it is just a lie and we don’t have rights. It’s the same authoritarianism people fought and died to erase from the world. Judges can’t be allowed to just do what they want.
They aren’t jailing you indefinitely just because you angered the judge. They might give you a few days if, again, you’re just being an asshole or wasting time.
I’ve seen a lot of “Oh, judges can’t be trusted” since Trumps indictments have rolled out. I wonder why that is.
By refusing to tell the truth to the court, you’re basically refusing to take part in the trial. Which translates to you’re refusing to take part in the justice system, yet also somehow wanting justice … ??
The thread is talking about a dude telling a joke. It’s obviously a joke. And you’re defending the possibility that a judge could have someone be jailed for years over it. That in the land of the free you can be tortured on the order of a psuedo king over a joke.
No. Fuck that, and fuck you. There is nothing legitimate or defensible about that, goodbye.
IDK, imprisoning a person until they either comply or the trial concludes without them seems pretty good for the judge. Bad for the person subpoenaed, but it’s no skin of the judge’s back
It's really a process of letting the subpoenaed know that they either tell the truth, lie and face perjury charges, or refuse and face contempt or court charges. The latter can seemingly land you in jail in perpetuity. Because fuck you, I guess?
Only if there’s a risk at incriminating yourself, and if it’s not immediately apparent how you’d run that risk (e.g. you’re a witness that doesn’t have a direct relation to the crime at hand) you’d have to motivate how it could be incriminating.
That's mostly for police. Once you're in court and ordered to testify, the person talking about germany is mostly correct. You can't be forced to self-incriminate nor testify against a spouse. Otherwise yes. Generally 99% of courts won't bother even asking the defendant to testify because self-incrimination is practically guaranteed. Usually only if the defense calls on them, which is often a bad idea.
Before I left Reddit, I searched for alternatives and saw that people recommended Lemmy or Kbin. But I didn’t know what those things were. I assumed they were just Reddit clones hosted by someone else. I didn’t know that I could create an account on Kbin and interact with other posts in the Fediverse. I didn’t even know what the Fediverse was. So I was stuck with this decision of “do I try Lemmy or Kbin first?”
When I decided to try Lemmy, the first thing you need to do is sign up on an instance. People recommended beehaw.org, but that required filling out an application to join. That seems weird, since I never had to apply to read Reddit. I decided to try another instance (sh.itjust.works) but was worried that I was missing out on what people had recommended about other instances. Maybe I chose the wrong one? Maybe I should make an account on Lemmy.world instead?
It took me a little while to grasp the concept of federation and realize that it made no difference as an end user which instance I chose. I stuck with it, as did everyone reading this, but I think it’s fair to say that the average person has similar barriers to entry. We’ve overcome them, but many, many people will not.
True, the concept of the fediverse is probably what confuses people, it's never explained clearly. I hope it's growth helps spread information about it, how it works and why you want it.
The app situation is getting much much better. The website UI is inferior to old reddit or the apps. I know some servers support the old reddit UI but it’s not discoverable. Stuff like expanding images needs to be easier to do instead of clicking a semi-hidden 10px square each picture.
Sync and Boost are great, though I’m still not happy with the iOS apps (I like Avalon and Mlem, but I don’t live either of them, whereas the Android apps feel fantastic).
Boost is lovely and polished and you can see that tons of work has gone into it.
Tell you what though: while I was waiting for Boost, damned if the Voyager (fka wefwef) PWA came out of nowhere with (I think) some of the nicest UX of any of the contenders, plus an insane release schedule because they can just push changes whenever. Voyager is honestly what has kept me here. (…he says, posting from Boost)
exploit users, exploit volunteer workforce, surely exploit their professional workforce.. you know they have a pet name in that company.. they're not humans anymore.. they're "Snoos".. isn't that sweet..
Time for a new influx. Everyone still on reddit needs to advertise lemmy.
And not join-lemmy.org, that’s confusing. Just pick one of the larger servers like lemm.ee or fedia.io and tell people to browse it and click “Sign Up” if they like it.
I’d recommend a smaller community to help spread the load. I originally signed up on .world but they were having some growing pains (And a disgruntled idiot ddosing them) so I moved to .ca which helped tremendously.
I really disagree. For learning lemmy for average people, big instance is best.
There is a point where people who stick around are likely to make a new “real” account on a different smaller server, after they know what they want to browse.
Basically big instances should be like training wheels.
Yup ads and posts on reddit are becoming even more indistinguishable, the “organic community” is just a selling point for marketing because you can embed yourself in it, basically just exploiting their users. The metrics to gauge ad performance is based on things that make the site shitty as well. Reddit, at least the big subs, haven’t been organic in this way for a long time, it’s basically a simulation of an organic online community at this point.
people go fucking nuts hyping the game as a result. their social media team plants those seeds to make it look organic.
a year or more of speculation occurs.
todd howard being his little schmuck self comes out and boasts about their new game.
people lose their god damn minds.
whispers of shitty gameplay start occurring closer to launch.
the masses tell those people to fuck off how could they know, dishonest review etc etc.
the big names in game reviews all review it and give it out of the park amazing reviews.
people go batshit crazy. people are out in the streets killing their parents for a chance at the new bethesda god game.
the game is released and is somewhat playable but jesus fuck is it lacking, it’s buggy, and every character looks like they’ve been updated from skyrim graphics of yore. the story sucks. the game play is empty but goddamn is there a lot to explore.
everyone rushes in like a madman.
everyone realizes the gameplay sucks.
people start bitching.
others say “oh don’t worry, DLC and user created mods will fill the game out nicely.”
years pass.
the unpaid modding community pours their heart and soul into making the game not fucking suck.
after all the DLC has come out (all with mostly positive or mixed reviews on steam) the game will go dark for a year or so.
todd howard wakes from his capitalist vampire coma needing fresh life force. the blood money of his unsuspecting idiot fans.
todd howard makes it into the office and says we could make a new game or we can milk this game for the next decade and a half. quick come up with names to rerelease the game under. game of the year edition. complete edition. master edition. elite edition. remastered. remastered complete. anything works!
over the course of the next three decades, todd howard is fed the blood of bethesda’s fan base.
he is swollen, like a fat tick upon his harkonen throne, waiting to burst.
“the people. they call for a NEW game”, he says, a devilish sneer contorts his face.
If you like Bethesda games, you’re gonna like this one. If you don’t like Bethesda games, you’re not going to like this one. I don’t know what else to tell you, bud.
Don’t mistake the bitching of a vocal minority of lemmy/reddit posters and YouTube influencers (who bitch primarily for clicks) as “everyone”. There are actually a lot of people who like these games - myself included - and a lot of them aren’t on any sort of social media. I loved vanilla Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 and love modded versions even more. I’m having a blast with vanilla Starfield right now - easily dozens of hours over the long weekend. And I’ll probably love modded Starfield even more as well.
It doesn’t matter how many people or what kind of people moved from Reddit. I was there 14 years (Digg 4.0 exile here). They have a new group of people now. My wife and kids now use Reddit, but it’s not the same type of user interaction I experienced there in the past. It’s very much a mix of scrolling through TikTok videos and sparse reading of comments on an /r/askreddit thread. It’s casual browsing and video content. There are still some holdouts, which I think mostly contribute to what’s left of the comment section, but that’s it. It sucks, because I miss the discussions there. Lemmy kind of scratches that itch, but the content is slow to come in, and the comments so few. I’m doing my part, and I am much more active here than I ever was on Reddit.
Fellow Digg exile, previous Fark, previous Slashdot, etc.
I still go back to Reddit for several niche groups that just don’t have enough users to transition - would likely disappear if people moved elsewhere (Lemmy or Discord)
Yea I remember it went to shit around 2018 or somewhere there about. I had been hoping for a viable alternative for a while. I should thank Spez in retrospect.
I mean, it’s kind of always been shit, but it was “our” shit. Now it’s a different crowd, and their “shit”. I don’t want to deal with their “shit”, so I don’t really go there anymore and treat it like Ravenholm.
Exactly how I felt there too. Reddit was different. It wasn’t the place where you could come and chat with strangers about things you enjoy, even the most positive subs were littered with spam and comments usually devolved into arguments.
Not saying it didn’t happen here but the vibe is for sure better. Haven’t logged into my reddit account since spez killed Sync.
Maybe I am part of that new group? I’m just here for the memes. Lemmy is amusement for me and a way to kill some time. If I want to have deep or meaningful discussions I’ll talk to people I actually know (and then I’ll also know I’m not wasting my time arguing with a troll). The “casual browsing” content is also lower quality here than on Reddit, but I can’t complain, because I don’t really contribute, I just lurk.
Reddit very much depends on the subreddits you subscribe to.
Browsing /r/askhistorians or /r/programming isn’t really the same experience as r/memes or whatever. Not logging in to reddit makes it way worse since you only see the popular low-effort threads instead of better niche content.
I was on reddit a couple times past couple of days for some specific purposes (like looking up Minecraft seeds). Checked the front page and stuff out of curiosity and I genuinely don’t know if the content was already as bad when I left or if Lemmy just gave me new standards or something, but Jesus Christ. It’s all just ragebait and TikTok reposts, even though everyone on reddit always claims to hate TikTok. It’s like if you collected all the lowest tier posts from every other site and then gathered them in one.
Same thing for me here, so much rage bait. I was asking a specific question on Google and a reddit post had a very good answer, curiosity sent me to r/all and it is so clearly meant to get under your skin.
It’s all “TikTok” now. I see TikTok, YT Shorts, Reddit video clips, Facebook video clips, IG video clips, etc. They are all TikTok in my head, and I don’t care enough to check them each out to differentiate between them and change my mind. This must be what getting old feels like.
They all repost to each other anyway. Some creators will just post directly to several of them, but there’s also entire content factories designed around stealing other peoples creative works and reposting them on a different platform.
It’s interesting to me. We saw a similar evolution in facebook, where it went from silly posts about your status, to image posts that people argued over, and now (as I saw when I visited my aging mother) it’s just an endless scrolling of short videos.
Ill never understand the appeal of short form video. I watch YT for episodic content ~10-20 mins or deep tutorials about some niche technical thing Im doing or interested in doing
IMO the quality of discussion here is about the same on reddit. Which is to say, not very good, or very deep. It’s shallow observations, memes, and one liner gut reactions to headlines. People have been conditioned over the past decade to not engage with long replies or complex thoughts. It might have to do with social media becoming more or less defined by people engaging with it on mobile devices, which don’t really enable that sort of engagement. But it might also be people genuinely not giving a shit anymore and only wanting that minor degree of superficial interaction.
There’s just so much content now a days it’s easier to just not comment to a reply and move on, where when I was on forums it was the main thing to do because there wouldn’t be so many posts
Yeah I’ve seen some pretty benign comments get downvoted to hell here on Lemmy if they’re even just a tiny bit out of line from the consensus which is no better than Reddit.
I think you’re right. And if anyone wants to give a deep/thoughtful comment it often feels like swimming upstream. Nuances are ignored and people will just downvote you if they think you’re disagreeing with them (even if disagreement is only partial).
I think it has a lot to do with longer messages seeming “elitist” in addition to the tendency of trolls to find one phrase they don’t like and derail the entire topic over it. You write 3 paragraphs, most don’t read past the first sentence and vote based on that, and some troll starts nitpicking your use of “us” vs “we” instead of the actual topic. Over time you see putting the effort into a comment as pointless or outright adversarial, and you stop. It’s the trolls and the low effort people that make having quality conversations frustrating. Not trying to gatekeep, but I firmly believe that once a site becomes popular enough that all the “Lowest Common Denominators” join, quality drops. The signal to noise ratio just becomes too much. Popularity is a death sentence on the Internet.
Also there’s this legit tactic en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop that sometimes is employed by the trolls themselves to basically DDoS people. Preferring shorter comments at all become a legit behavior if there’s too many comments like that. If there’s long af comment, usually I’d like to see the replies or upvotes first to defend against that.
People have been conditioned over the past decade to not engage with long replies or complex thoughts
I think this has two parts. One, it’s just so easy for any long/complex comment to attract ‘attacks’ that will target some small minutia. The internet in general seems to find pedantry of grammar and small inconsistencies (in an allegory, for instance, which is not supposed to be an exact match for the tale it’s telling) to be the height of humor and the best way to ‘counter’ an argument.
Second, I think people in general are more demanding of having their space be as comfortable and similar to them as possible. My friends of nearly three decades and I have plenty of things we disagree about, and even argue about, but it seems as if differences are no longer accepted. Let’s pick a common and slightly humorous one from Lemmy: if you and I were to disagree about the extent of how evil a conservative is (not even that they are evil, or do evil, or whatever else), one or the other of us would be blocking the other, haranguing the moral turpitude that is said different belief, etc.
It combines to make anything but short, bland or ‘act like they are acting’ comments a headache to actually post. I’ve found myself typing up a response to a biology article somebody had posted, and eventually just hit the cancel button because it wasn’t worth the bother.
The people that think they are being clever by ignoring the entire conversation and just responding with Strawman! or Ha! You misspelled that so you don’t know what you are talking about! offer so little to actual conversation that they don’t even realize why no one wants to talk to them. They seem like they are just repeating what they saw people before them do without awareness or understanding of why or even what their words mean.
The internet is such a microbubbled place now. Each niche divided and divided again so that everyone can have exactly what they want and nothing more or less until each of them might as well be a homunculus living as a single entity if wasn’t for the ability for someone to advertise or sell a product to that group.
I thought it is good if everyone has their own specific thing but we still need to be able to interact as a whole, and that generalized communication is a dying skill apparently. Or maybe we are just to many steps away from the original products that the internet is becoming full of Cargo Cults that just copy without reason… I dunno.
Have you been on reddit recently? The average discussion on Lemmy may not be super deep, but the comment sections of larger reddit threads have become downright painful to read. It honestly feels like every negative cliché about reddit has been dialed up to eleven.
Honestly, the worst thing about Lemmy is Lemmy users thinking it’s better than Reddit simply by the virtue of it not being Reddit.
The platform? Yes, absolutely, a much better solution with built in checks and balances to stop one greedy company eating everyone’s lunch.
The content? It’s identical! (Bar a few cosplay communists that stir up drama occasionally). And some things are significantly worse like the quality of content curation and moderation.
For every person writing an “ugh you must be a Redditor”/“I thought I left this behind on Reddit” type comment,I bet there are many more people rolling their eyes and at least a few of them that end up abandoning the platform entirely.
For every person writing an “ugh you must be a Redditor”/“I thought I left this behind on Reddit” type comment
Oh my God right? This bull shit.
I want to like lemmy because I don’t want to support a web platform that so clearly thinks so little of its users and aims for monetization that involves literally just paying for comments you want to hear.
But this self assured that lemmy is the hottest shit stuff needs to cool off. I mean look at who started this platform and the large communities of people with super simplified garbage takes on anything with an iota of complexity and you realize that people here just want to be superior without doing anything superior. But that is a great way to be lonely forever.
Also let’s not forget that Reddit has duration as an advantage. I can look back 10 years on a tv show that is no longer airing and there will still be discussion threads from when it came out. That’s literally impossible to manufacture overnight, so Reddit has a huge edge.
That’s fine so long as we’re admitting it does. Reddit having a huge edge and everyone acting like it doesn’t is just setting up new users for disappointment.
I get better responses here on Lemmy with my longer replies, which is great. Reddit feels overall dumber now where people will try and argue that your comment with sources is somehow less compelling than someone else’s sourceless opinion (true story).
I’ve had the same experiences actually. It’s also a lot more common (at least from what I’ve experienced) to find people being more composed here even in the face of some divisive or provocative content.
My favorite thing about Lemmy is that you can comment on an article that’s several hours old and get responses. Reddit was so big that if you didn’t comment on major articles within a couple minutes of being posted, your comment would get buried under a thousand other comments and would never be seen. Commenting became a game of which top level comment you could possibly sneak your comment as a response to, even if it wasn’t really a “response” to what the person had said, just to get your comment seen and have a chance at sparking a discussion.
Lenmy is brilliant as platform and concept, but the truth is it simply can’t compare to Reddit where there are 1000x more user and 100x more comments/activity.
Torrents are peer to peer. The storage comes exclusively from seeders. If nobody is seeding a torrent, and nobody has the data, it is dead and the data no longer exists.
Look at Twitch. Microsoft, Facebook, and (somewhat) Google have attempted to dethrone them and they’ve all failed. Things like Rumble and Kick are still going, and Kick may have a slight chance.
But that’s a much smaller platform, that everyone agrees is absolute garbage and trying to kill itself at every turn. YouTube would be a much bigger challenge.
TILVids has orders of magnitude less usage than YouTube, both in terms of storage and bandwidth.
Generally speaking you can expect to hit one bottleneck or another whenever you grow one order of magnitude, and fixing these becomes harder each time.
That depends on what you want. Folks where talking about a YouTube replacement. If TILVids is that for you right now and you don’t expect more content there then it’s all good.
Yeah I think most people thinking we can just replace YouTube do not understand the scale of their operation. What YouTube does is many many orders of magnitude bigger and more complex than anything happening on the fediverse. PeerTube is a joke by comparison. There is a reason that even when VC money was flowing like crazy, nobody was able to even think about launching a competitor.
On top of that, no platform can seek to replace YouTube without offering the same or better creator compensation. Free services will never meet that.
Its also getting the content creators onto the new platform. Thats a bigger challenge I think, without creators it’s a dead site really, and making videos is significantly more difficult than image or text posting.
For storage, if we assume the format would be WebM at 1080p, 60fps and 20 minutes in length, it turns out to about 1GB. Even a cheap VPS instance usually offer 50GB of storage (with not too expensive storage upgrades).
So if its distributed evenly, we can host a good bit of videos (nothing compared to YouTube though).
So if its distributed evenly, we can host a good bit of videos (nothing compared to YouTube though).
I read 500 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute. Obviously a lot of that is low quality, but we're still talking a lot of content unless we're suggesting the creators host it themselves (which could work for a small subset of folks if it were enough of a turnkey solution).
Its nearly impossible to replicate what YouTube it is today. The amount of storage and bandwith require is immense, also the creators coming up to a new platform without a way to get money it will really hard to have something like YouTube.
Its nearly impossible to replicate what YouTube it is today.
Why would we want to? People want to replace Youtube because Youtube sucks ass. Replacing it with another monetized platform will only ever lead to the same place Youtube is at now.
It sucks that people who managed to make a living from their hobby have gotten fucked over, but until we have some major regulatory and economic overhauls, that’s just how it works. Changing platforms is not a solution to that.
Let's not forget that there's money to be earned by being a youtube person. Creating a model that would make this possible in a federated approach would be bonkers as hell and probably just invite predatory dipshits who then lure creators with seemingly good offers and then start to hold them hostage in ways YouTube hasn't dared so far.
The reality is that most content creators will not switch platforms because it guarantees a significant loss of viewership. Ad reads won’t pay much if you’re only talking to a fraction of your audience.
lure creators with seemingly good offers and then start to hold them hostage in ways YouTube hasn’t dared so far.
Like Smosh?
Young up and coomers, first giants on YouTube. Sold their channel and brand for stock. Then were tied to the company for years who worked them like dogs. Until the company that bought them went bankrupt so their stock was nullified and they in the end sold their company for $0.
While I agree in spirit, what other option is there in a capitalist society? Paying a subscription fee for every single service or every single content creator? Not sure people are going to go for that en masse.
Most professional YouTubers survive primarily off of Patreon support and sponsored videos. YouTube ads provide only a small fraction of what they earn. If they could increase their Patreon or sponsorship income by cross-posting to PeerTube, then they could be enticed to do so. The current issue there is that sponsors are going to want accurate analytics, and PeerTube isn't going to be able to offer the kind of depth of audience analysis that YouTube can.
The problem is, the cost of hosting videos -- both in terms of storage and in terms of bandwidth -- is kind of prohibitive. That part needs to be solved.
I never knew how much I needed Star Trek memes in my life until Stamets and The Picard Maneuver graced us with their presence. Walk with the prophets, my child.
I miss the niche content. Lemmy isn’t big enough yet to have sorted into big “stupid” subs vs smaller niche subs that tend to attract smarter and more well-informed users. The result is that the signal-to-noise ratio on Lemmy still kind of sucks and any comment thread is likely to consist of three quarters banal gibberish and condescending idiocy and maybe one quarter actually intelligent, thoughtful and informed opinion.
I rarely make a comment on Lemmy without pissing off people on all sides of any given issue, which tells me that Lemmy’s users aren’t really good at nuance or complexity.
I did at first, but I don’t miss it at all anymore. Too many assholes at this point. It stopped being useful a long time ago. Finding old Reddit threads can be helpful sometimes, but current Reddit is a shitshow.
One subreddit I still check occasionally is just for Skyrim mods made by one guy. This community of mere hundreds is wherever he makes his posts, and moving would annoy some of his Patreon supporters. The switching cost is high relative to the benefits of switching.
When looking something up, especially technical product information the best answer is still often a reddit link. That will change in the future but it will take time.
Old.reddit is the only way yo access this information without account but i paradoxically cant wait for them to shut it down cause the quicker reddit completely dies the faster other places will become knowledge hubs.
Ehhh, even for that I’ve had issues, even before the API stuff. The solutions I came across either came from casual word of mouth on Discord, tutorials on GitHub or forums other than Reddit.
It never was the pinnacle of knowledge, i am not on many different forums and only in the last year have started to avoid internet search where possible but often neither google or bing have satisfying results with only a single reddit link that may have the answer.
Wait until you need to read an answer to a technical question which was only answered on Reddit. Can’t wait when such pages will be replaced with Lemmy.
I was trying to find if is safe to mix LSD with energy drinks and the only place where someone was answering that was on reddit, restricted because is 18+ somehow. Had to use the tip given from OP to see it outside the app. The general consensus (because this shit can’t be properly researched) is that caffeine in general is not recommended with LSD.
I wouldn’t take drug-mixing advice from some rando on reddit or lemmy or any other similar site.
That being said, please limit yourself to one substance at a time, get some fentanyl test strips and narcan if you’re able, and always have a wingman with you. Assuming it’s possible where you live, buy your drugs from a regulated dispensary or at least a source you know and trust (whose source they trust).
Have fun, but stay safe. The times they are a changing…even weed has dangerous shit mixed in nowadays.
I mean , you can’t exactly go ask a doctor how to use lsd. Sometimes you just want to read up on something based on someone else’s personal experience. The website might be doing some dumb shit lately but it’s hard to replace the vast number of people who have answered exact questions you’re looking for. Lemmy just doesn’t have the 10+ year head start
Problem is, many otherwise good doctors are not very knowledgeable about illicit drugs, particularly those that are comparatively rare/aren’t a public health crisis (LSD, while popular, is kinda niche compared to meth and opioids).
A big chunk of the time you’re just going to get “Don’t use drugs”, simply because they don’t have much else to say about it, and don’t want you taking risks based on something they’ve said. Doesn’t mean don’t ask*, but know you may not get useful harm reduction information from Dr. F. Practitioner.
*That said there IS a risk that such a question can paint you as a potential drug seeker, and so create barriers to care if someone decides to add that to your chart when you were just trying to minimize risk.
I don’t actively use it either, but sometimes you’re trying to fix some esoteric error that no one has experienced since the existence of the Western Roman Empire and the only place where a solution exists is Reddit. In those cases I kinda have to visit that wretched hive.
Same. However, I have rarely been able to solve a technical problem with Reddit posts or comments. It’s a better source for random experiences about something.
For random technical problems with new software or hardware, Reddit quality is not as good as it used to be, IMHO.
For somewhat niche hobbies, like my mushroom growing, subjective experiences may be helpful to take into account. Reading dozens of different opinions about a problem in a hobby that has hundreds of different variables has its uses. (For example, if you want to test something specific, you can get an idea about the range of conditions to test.)
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.