Bakies? Bakees? Bakys?
- 4 posts
- 20 comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
- Data is Beautiful@lemmy.world•Where Inflation Has Hit the Hardest (2000–2025)byYondoza@sh.itjust.worksEnglish7 months
This graph makes sense when you consider the main cost of these goods/services. The ones that have raised in price are very labor dependent and human labor is expensive (as it should be). The ones that got cheaper are items whose manufacturing can include a lot of automation. What this graph shows is that human labor is expensive. That is obviously not the only factor, but I feel it is a good explanation for the trends shown.
OMG yes! Harry Potter makes the best curry sauce!
10 monthsHas this shown to be effective at stopping bots? It seems like you’d just be a few bad actors to ruin the system
I don’t think so. The main reason Facebook is so bad is it’s engagement algorithm. It is designed to maximize user engagement to sell adds, and it does that by putting outrage inspiring posts in front of users so that they have an emotional response and stay engaged. Using a human voting system instead of an outrage algorithm to determine what content people is exactly why I enjoy this platform over the other social media platforms.
Is there still rage bait here? Of course! Is it systematically shoved down your throat? No.
I was assuming you’d make an account with the ID for the govt instance and use anonymous accounts for all other browsing. At least that’s what I would do.
I’m not familiar with web of trust. What does that mean?
I believe there is existing precedent from SCOTUS that official government Twitter accounts were not allowed to block citizens accounts due to it being a ‘public square’. So that was a govt official taking the action of silencing someone’s ability to respond to them on social media protected by 1A. If the PLATFORM had blocked that user it would have been perfectly valid, since the GOVT did not silence a citizen’s speech.
I believe having the govt run the instance would make the entire forum subject to 1A in a way current social media is not. Would love a constitutional scholar to chime in, but that’s my argument.
I also don’t get the impression there is a large bot presence here today. I do think if the platform was used as a normal communication network between constituient and representative it would probably become a target for foreign and domestic bots.
10 months
I believe we need dedicated spaces for political discussion that are not based on algorithms optimized for engagement (aka outrage). Lemmy has the advantage that the algorithms ordering content are pretty easy to understand and are not driven by the profit incentives that require maximizing user engagement over all else.
In my opinion, Lemmy lacks two things to facilitate being this public square today. The first is a way to limit bots or bad actors from participating in discussions. To my knowledge the bot problem has not been solved on this platform. (Please correct me if I’m wrong). The second is that some of the people who need to participate in these discussions aren’t on Lemmy.
I believe both of these issues could be fixed by governments hosting their own instances and requiring identification from that country to participate on the platform. An ‘official’ place for representatives and constituents to converse should resolve second issue. I think just a few key people actively participating in discussions would be enough to start this transituon. The ID will make many people nervous, and we should be wary of ways in which governments could abuse this power. I don’t know of a better way to reduce bot influence on public discussions though.
This next bit is American specific (sorry). Having the government host the instance would make it subject to the first amendment, so it should be difficult to silence views through moderation if the constitution still means anything. Even though SCOTUS seems to ignore it, I believe it’s in our best interest to act as if the constitution still works the way we want it to. To act otherwise is to concede its power.
Oh yeah, location sharing will have almost no effect those risks. Totally agree.
Just disagreeing that
Risk assessment is probability and severity. The probability can be vanishingly low, but if the severity is astoundingly high then acting like a high risk situation could be appropriate.
Take asteroids. The last planet killer to hit us was 94million years ago. A rudimentary estimate could put the probably as 1:94mil. The severity of an asteroid impact of that magnitude is off the charts, so it is reasonable to consider it a risk and act accordingly to spend resources to search for and track asteroid trajectories.
The severity of abduction, murder, and rape is probably pretty high for most people, so considering it a risk even with a very small probability is not unreasonable.
I agree it feels very slow, but identifying the correct action and then building consensus around that action takes time. Once consensus is built it is very stable though. That is supposed to be the biggest benefit of democracy; stability built through coalition.
Thank you for the write up. That distinction makes a lot of sense.
Ahh fantastic point. There isn’t really an incentive for the individuals to maintain/perpetuate the institution.
I understand the sentiment. I’m wondering about the efficacy of the strategies to achieve those end goals.
I don’t agree with this. Shareholders extracting value from a company is arguably more of an ‘inefficency’ than treating employees fairly. Well treated employees provide a benefit to the company while shareholders purely remove resources.
I have no data to back up my claim, just logic, so I could very well be wrong.
The overarching goal of communism is for laborers to own the means of production instead of an owning/capitalist class. Employee owned businesses are the realization of communism within a capitalist society.
It seems to me that most communist organizations in capitalist societies focus on reform through government policies. I have not heard of organizations focusing on making this change by leveraging the capitalist framework. Working to create many employee owned businesses would be a tangible way to achieve this on a small but growing scale. If successful employee owned businesses are formed and accumulate capital they should be able to perpetuate employee ownership through direct acquisition or providing venture capital with employee ownership requirements.
So my main questions are:
- Are organizations focusing on this and I just don’t know about it?
- If not, what obstacles are there that would hinder this approach to increasing the share labor collective ownership?
- 1 year
That you very much for writing this up. It is super interesting, and I feel bad for dismissing her. Unfortunately, I will probably continue people whom are the vague they.
It’s even more bleak than that. Politically, the bargaining power of the masses is from the labor they contribute. As soon as the need of human labor is gone, there is absolutely no reason for those with power to heed the will of the populus. You can say open revolt, but if we’re talking a situation where any significant portion of the military is automated, uprisings are no longer a concern.