Maybe billionaires should be filmed and streamed continuously, since their behavior has such a big impact on the world. If they don’t like it maybe we shouldn’t allow them to control such incredible assets. I’m sure billionaires have nothing sketchy to hide, right? What we will see is probably how they are hard working people who are not at all detached from normal folks. Right?

I learned that just now.

Elon Musk

Can someone explain to me the difference between bluesky and twitter?

This made me look up the wikipedia page on Bushism and I must say it’s beautiful! Thanks :)

I just use RSS feeds to follow YT-channels. It’s doesn’t seem any less convenient than a YT account.

Can’t be that much work, can it?

What a great site, I’ll definitely be sharing it with some (naive) friends and colleagues :)

What people think when they haven’t heard of the Fediverse.

do we need to wait until they start acting in truly awful ways before we act on the fact that they control a majority of the market and are trying to increase their market dominance

No I was arguing for exactly the opposite. Let’s not wait, but aim for non-profit decentralized platforms.

I agree, sort of. People may be right to point out that it’s not only about a dominant position but also about abusing that market power to lock people in. Still I think our entire platform-economy is a little problematic. People want one-stop-shopping because it’s really convenient, and people tend to go to platforms where others already are. So most people stick with Steam, Spotify, Uber, Whatsapp, etc. I don’t think this has to be a problem, if indeed these platform are in a way neutral, free, not abusing their power. Sometimes these platforms already behave in responsible manner, but there really is no guarantee that this will stay that way. Everything with a dominant position can be enshittified, including Steam. What we need are FOSS decentralized platforms! Platforms where everyone comes together are so important, that they shouldn’t be left to for-profit companies, people should come together in public squares.

Slowly across the globe we move towards surveillance states, one country is further down the path than the other, but we all makes steps in the same directions. If public awareness won’t rise I don’t see us escaping this dystopian future. Still today many people argue ‘I have nothing to hide’ and don’t have any critical thought beyond this point. Are we doomed or am I being to negative?

Wikipedia is such a beauty and I’m so glad and grateful it exists. Surely it’s not perfect, but it’s so inspiring and hopeful to see a collective effort be so successful. I sometimes wonder, what new projects we’ve seen since that are equally inspiring. The Fediverse certainly is beautiful but it’s also still a little bit fringe. I personally really like MusicBrainz, but that started 24 years ago What new collective projects has the internet brought us in recent years? And what collective projects could the future bring us?

Off topic: I’d argue Love Exposure by Sion Sono is the best movie ever made.

it just doesnt work as a system in our current cultural framework

True. But our current system fits our cultural framework, because it has shaped it to be the way it is. That in itself is no reason to stick with it. Not saying this can easily be changed. But we shouldn’t lose sight of far away possibilities just because they seem far away. It’s worth it striving for a better world.

People like to contribute to society because it feels good. People will respond positively to you if you contribute, and you will feel good about yourself. and you will feel like you’re part of something bigger, that you matter not just to yourself but to others too. Look at how much voluntary work is being done in society in all sorts of fields, this is being done for these reasons, not for money. You could argue, that this is mostly in certain fields, and most work would never be done for free. For instance a lot of volunteers are care-givers, and it’s easy to see why this is very rewarding. But would people go into the mines to mine coal just to benefit society. Well no, in our society as it is certainly not.

But could it be that we’re conditioned to think about our society in this way? In our society people get paid to do such things, it would feel very wrong to us, if people usually get paid for dirty work, that suddenly this would need to happen voluntarily. That would obviously be really unfair. But we could try to imagine what a world would be like without money. If you live in a community that functions like a sort of small anarchist communist society, and you’ve never heard of money or being paid for stuff, then it’s not hard to imagine someone caring about the well being of his community and wanting to contribute for previously mentioned reasons: feeling good about contributing, having a certain status because of contributing. It’s easy to see how people currently think, but it could very well be that people currently think a certain way because things currently are a certain way. And that if the world would be different, people would also think and behave different.

Surely in any case there will be a limit to the ‘working extra hard’, and it might be different from where the limit is for people in our current system. But that doesn’t have to be a negative. Competing to gain as much money as you can often goes far beyond what seems healthy. Money is such an integral part of how our society functions that for many it’s become a sort of obsession. When thinking of how you could live a successful life some people can only think: if I earn a lot of money, then I’ll be successful. And obviously this is bollocks. You’re free to define life success by whatever measures you deem important, but comparative study will show that the ones who earn most aren’t always the ones that feel most happy and fulfilled. Focusing solely on money often just stems from an insecurity, if it’s just money than I don’t have to really think. It can feel comfortable to not have to think because this objective of earning as much as I can is predefined and I can try to optimize my performance based on that. I think a lot of people can see how that’s a very lacking view on how to live, and it certainly won’t be the most rewarding strategy for life if you want to feel happy and fulfilled.

You’re saying all human ambition is based on money-hunger and thankfully that is false.

How the hell am I supposed to know which parts of that picture contain bicycles?

We don’t want your shitty products :)

Most people who make art don’t make any money from it. Some make a little bit of money. A small number of people can afford a living just by making art, and just a fraction of that actually get most of the money that’s being earned by artists, and then of course there is a lot of money that’s being paid for art that never reaches the artist. The business as it is is not working very well for anyone except for some big media companies. The complete lack of commercial success hasn’t stopped a lot of artists, it won’t stop them in the future. Thank god, because it wouldn’t be the first time that after decades of no commercial success whatsoever such an outsider is discovered by the masses. Sure, lack of commercial success has stopped others, but that’s happening now just as it will happen without copyright laws. If donating to artists out of free will would be the norm, and people knew that that’s the main source of income for certain types of artists, then I’m sure a lot of people would do so. And aside from private donations there could be governments and all sorts of institutions financing art. And if someone still can’t make a living, then still none of that could legitimize copyright in my view. We should strive for a world where everyone that wants to follow up on their creative impulses has time and opportunity to do so, irrespective of their commercial success. But there should also be unrestricted access to knowledge, ideas, art, etc. Brilliant research, photography or music shouldn’t be reserved for those who can afford access. The public domain should be the norm so that our shared project of human creativity can reach maximum potential. Copyright seems to me to be a rather bizarre level of control over the freedom of others. It’s making something public for others to see, but then telling these people you’re not allowed to be inspired by it, you can’t take a free copy to show others, you can’t take the idea and do with it as you please. It’s severely limiting us culturally, it’s harming human creativity. And at the same time it’s hypocritical. Artistic ideas are often completely based of the ideas of others, everyone can see that the output is the result of a collective effort. The Beatles didn’t invent pop music, they just made some songs, precisely copying all that came before them, and then added a tiny bit of their own. And that’s not a criticism, that’s how human creativity functions. That’s what people should strive for. To limit copying, is to limit humanity in it’s core. Again, human creativity is very clearly a collective effort. But despite this fact, when someone gets successful suddenly it’s a personal achievement and they are allowed to ask for a lot of money for it. Well my answer is, yes they are allowed to ask, and I am very willing to pay, but they shouldn’t be allowed to go beyond asking, they shouldn’t be allowed to restrict access of something that has been published.