like would it have been better if we did that?

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 20 minutes ago

I would say the biggest unifying factor for all Lemmy users is the belief that big tech sucks for one reason or another. If you want someone to answer 'No' to this question then you need to ask it somewhere else.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Yes.

    We should have done that yesterday.

    But the next best time is now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 2 hours ago

    We did. #Linux #LibreOffice #Thunderbird #DuckDuckGo #Nextcloud #Signal #Mastodon

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 hours ago (14 children)

    Change is inevitable.

    If you live in a capitalist society, everything will eventually become monetized.

    Tech isn't the problem; monetization is.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 hours ago* (1 child)

    Monetization and commodification. Many things should be off limits to those cretins. Like healthcare and all types of insurance. (and food and shelter, but we've got to start with something, and healthcare is far more understandable to most)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 hours ago

    Here's something that gets overlooked.

    A big part of Ronald Reagan's 'deregulation' was letting third rate business people make lots of money. Toy companies could run half hour ads for products like Pokemon and Transformers. Federally insured S&Ls could make unlimited loans.

    When you look at things being awful, it almost always comes back to Reagan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (11 children)

    The problem is not just monetization. Capitalism can function and provide reasonable prices, but that takes actual robust competition, and actual robust competition, requires lots of small players, not a few big monopolies.

    So to OP's point, yes, it would have been better to get off big tech earlier. Supporting small companies over big companies is always an inherent good in a capitalist society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (7 children)

    Capitalism provides none of that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 hour ago* (4 children)

    Explain your point or shut the fuck up with this low effort nonsense.

    It doesn't even make grammatical sense given that I claimed capitalism can provide one thing (reasonable prices), and you responded with 'none of that' as if I listed a multitude of things.

    Jesus Christ Lemmy is becoming as brain dead as Reddit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 25 minutes ago (3 children)

    You seem a bit angry. Maybe take a break from technology today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 minutes ago (2 children)

    Good advice, but my point stands. Post better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 12 minutes ago (1 child)

    You want me to write a dissertation on why Capitalism doesn't provide reasonable prices, cannot provide "actual robust competition", and cannot stop a few big monopolies?. Sorry, I'm not going to. Lenin was writing about this stuff 100 years ago.. The current state of Capitalism, that is Capitalism. That's how it functions. There isn't some idyllic form of Capitalism that we can work towards ... that has never existed ever.

    People like to point to the 1950s and 1960s postwar US and the Nordics as examples of "how Capitalism should function". Postwar US was in a red scare, Communism spreading across Europe, fear of uprisings at home, and that fear forced progressive concessions. The one era of capitalism people romanticize is that one, and it was shaped by fear of Communism plus massive grassroots working-class movements.

    Same thing in the Nordics. What is right next door? The Soviet Union, with a successful revolution that brought millions out of abject poverty and brought USSR from a feudal backwater to modern superpower within decades. The fear of that spreading caused Nordics and elsewhere to give more concessions to the working class. The form of Capitalism itself hasn't changed one single bit. There's still wars, worker exploitation, imperialism, global extraction and exploitation of the 3rd world (global south), etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 minutes ago

    Same thing in the Nordics. What is right next door? The Soviet Union, with a successful revolution that brought millions out of abject poverty and brought USSR from a feudal backwater to modern superpower within decades. The fear of that spreading caused Nordics and elsewhere to give more concessions to the working class. The form of Capitalism itself hasn't changed one single bit. There's still wars, worker exploitation, imperialism, global extraction and exploitation of the 3rd world (global south), etc.

    I'm guessing you're American given your piss poor knowledge of world history.

    Because no, the Nordic countries did not give worker concessions because the USSR next door.

    First of all, the conditions of the USSR were not seen as good by basically anyone. Do you know how many mass purges happened in communist countries and how poor they were? It was not seen as a glowing ideal in Nordic countries. East Germany was not seen as paradise compared to West Germany by literally anyone.

    Second of all, this ignore the enormous concessions, changes, and progress that Nordic countries made since ether fall of the Soviet Union.

    Your analysis of capitalism is just black-pill edginess. Congrats on being a "nothing can ever be done to fix this" nihilist. Billionaires love people like you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 59 minutes ago

    The part of capitalism where the owner sits back, the workers do the work, and the owner keeps the profits is not necessary. It is in fact fucked up.

    You can have competition without that. (You can have other bad things too- it's not a magic cure-all for workers to own the business)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 hour ago

    Yes, of course.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

    Yes. We already screwed it up when Internet Protocol took over and DNS was established. There were better methods. There are better methods.

    That aside, we did have alternatives to big tech software for a long time:

    • Linux
    • Berkeley Software Distributions
    • All GNU software
    • LibreOffice
    • Mozilla software, at least historically, and forks of it
    • Etcetera
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

    I'm curious as to what issues IP and DNS caused that were so glaring. I assume better methods were (and are) available for addressing and routing, but that seems more a discussion about network architecture design than the kinds of societal problems that "big tech" is generally considered responsible for (if I am interpreting OP's question correctly, that is).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 37 minutes ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago) (2 children)

    I'm curious as to what issues IP and DNS caused that were so glaring.

    Internet Protocol makes addresses location-based, allowing for geoblocking and tracking. It's also centralized by design, allowing for consolidation of power, censorship, and control. DNS is one of the greatest examples of that consolidation of power, and is the reason owning a web domain costs money. In a decentralized public commons registrar or some kind, this would be no issue; a decentralized public commons registrar works better with a decentralized protocol.

    I assume better methods were (and are) available for addressing and routing

    Look into Reticulum. It's a good example of a better design.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 hours ago

    We should have stopped at MySpace.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    Regular users were warned 10 years ago to drop all social media like Facebook but they have no incentive to do this. They are now using AI on top of that because they don't care about privacy anymore.

    Governments were too lazy to change, but they had/have to do it now because of Trump (mostly) and maybe a bit because of the war in Ukraine, and Russia, China, and North Korea hacking everything. That's why they are now thinking of replacing Microsoft products like Office, creating European clouds, and relying more on European AI. But administrations are not known for being smart or fast in their decisions.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Depends on who you mean by we; if you mean literally everyone then yes absolutely, but I highly doubt we'd be that coordinated or monolithic. If you mean the people like us on the fediverse who are currently trying to do it then I think starting earlier would only make a mild to modest increase in our number.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago

    Yes but most people don't give a fuck if companies collect and track everything about you just so they can get their menes.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago
    [–] 3 points 2 hours ago

    Yes, or start raising the potential problems much sooner.

    To any anti AI millennials I try to point out that there’s a direct line from google search (which millennials were crazy about in the day) to AI.

  • source