Don’t know if this goes here or in /AskLemmy, but just wanted to know the best FOSS social networks, why are there so good? What would be the propietary equivalent?
Don’t know if this goes here or in /AskLemmy, but just wanted to know the best FOSS social networks, why are there so good? What would be the propietary equivalent?
What is Minds? I’ve never heard of that one.
Minds is a bit FB-like. I used them for years at a time when they had encryption as somewhat of a default (though it was confusing). I quit over 6 months ago when they changed. I might go back because I’d like to join some protest movements. I’d like to see a breakdown of what servers this social media sites are using so that censoring server co.s such as AWS/Amazon can’t pull the plug on them like was done with Parler. I love Lemmy’s large ratio of tech-savvy people, but it is certainly left-leaning and not very tolerant of other voices. I am bisexual, atheist, vegan, female, a minimalist, tree-hugger, often date outside of my race, but Lemmy members still call me a rightwinger and try to throw me out of this or that group. We need a chart outlining servers, general politcal stance, who runs it (how much it is controlled and how), if a phone number is needed and what kind of phn # is accepted, if IP is necessary, etc. These details are extremely important. EX: without ever signing in, Google/YT knows I am using TOR (and may give an error message to say as much) and also knows my IP or IMEI or possibly my mac address - some identifying fingerprint - not sure which. Also, knowing what type of encryption is avialable and if by default would help. I’ve seen a decent chart somewhere with some of that, but it needed to be more indepth.
I’m pansexual, nonbinary, vegan, and anarchist, and I think it’s really important for there to be safe spaces online where the Parler type perspective is not welcome; where bigotry and hatespeech is not welcome - I agree in the sense that there has to be a transparent code of conduct so that people know what they’re signing up for, and thankfully a heck of a lot of Fediverse instances offer that.
I certainly think everyone should have a safe space, but that it needs to be a smaller, more intimiate space - such as a friend’s house would be or a private group within a social network. I hate hearing negative talk about women, yet still think incels and misogynists should have a right to their own group. Sometimes all people want is to talk out their frustrations and not act them out. Sometimes once they get that off their chest, they chill out a little bit. I’ve never been on Parler and fear the tyranny of “the Left” as much as that of “the Right”. Quite frankly, i feel squeezed uncomfortably by both sides and not allowed to be independent-minded. Call me sexist, but women seem the worst about social bullying. I guess they need larger goals in life so that they are more occupied with their own danged business to mind mine. I think we need to allow polite open discussion and not be so quick to shout someone down. Our react might be more productive if we handled it by rational discussion rather than by emotional outbursts. I don’t feel at home in a Conservative Atheist group, either - tried that and didn’t like it. But, I cannot ask others to change for me - and, can only hope they don’t expect me to change for them. I refused to change for my own family and have mostly disowned them. Why some ‘offended’ person thinks they can change me, idk why. I don’t play that shame-game. Perhaps more middle-of-the-road or Libertarian-minded people simply need to learn tech more and start their own groups so that Left and Right don’t continue to squeeze them out.
I mean traditionally the people who were techies have generally been “middle of the road Libertarian minded people”. Just look at the founding of the EFF.
I grew up very conservative and then became libertarian, and now I’m anarchist/socialist. I think a lot of people have had a similar journey as me in tech. Increasingly more and more tech people are waking up to the ways they’re being shafted by their bosses and they aren’t happy with it.
In the 90s it was easy to believe in a utopian sort of capitalism. The USSR had just fallen, jobs were booming, and even after the dotcom crash, most engineers were well paid even if they weren’t particularly good at their job.
But code boot camps, machine learning, outsourcing, the corporate harvesting of open source, have all put greater pressure on the average techie. This is why there’s so much backlash against Elon Musk, because people are starting to get tired and see through the schtick. Techno utopianism has worn thin. Where’s my mfing flying car?!
And in addition to that, when Trump was elected, a lot of anti-racist libertarians looked around and realized how many of their “libertarian” friends who ranted all the time about “State’s Rights” were really just white supremacist chucklefucks. The Libertarian movement online has split. A lot of people went one way or the other.
My only issue with this is that the Left, at least in America has no power. Who is “the Left” to you? Biden? Biden is not really very Left at all. AOC? She has a platform and no power. Are you afraid of Spotify kicking Rogan off their platform? Spotify the capitalist tech monopolist that rips off artists?
Leftists in America are basically powerless fringe weirdos.
Whereas right wingers are literally most of our government. And they have drones and they kill people with those drones.
I like the EFF - what I know, at least. I am against the fascism of BigTech and that is what I hear you describing - though I am no political expert or tech graduate. I’ve seen how they try to replace developers with immigrants from India and China - who they also take advantage of. I think most people think of Big Biz when they think of capitalism, but in my mnd, it is a world mostly full of small businesses and mostly devoid of businesses with over 100 employees. Government is supposed to be objective about business, but is sadly very involved (in backroom deals, I’d bet). Again, I don’t know the more precice lingo. I only know that what I see scares me - that all of those chances our grandparents had to get ahead are going away. I am not sure about Elon Musk yet. It is terrifying to think that he could corner the internet market with satellite, though. I worry about AWS/Amazon cornering the server market and thus having the power to censor us. Satellite internet seems far more powerful than that. I’ve never met a white supremacist Libertarian online and have met almost no Libertarians at all in person. I was put off by a couple misogynists, but think those were broken-hearted lonely men who just needed to rant a while - even if it did hurt the women in the group. Libertarians are very, very independent types and will always be too split to go too far. I feel the same about the FOSS community. They simply don’t work too well with others and that makes it hard to get ahead sometimes. They don’t want to dominate (usually), but don’t always want to cooperate, negotiate, or compromise. I don’t know who AOC is.
I left Spotify because of censorship already, but still hate how they are treating Joe Rogan - though I never watch his show.
I think the lines are quite blurred about who or which co. is capitalist or just opportunist or leftist. I prefer tthe term fascist for co. such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google. If you get help or forgiveness from the gov’t, that is fascism and I hate it. It is tyranny and deprives others of a fair chance to compete. I realize there many shades of grey and I thought Trump was a moderate Republican (he used to be a Democrat) and that many Democrats can be as greedy as any Republican. The Left is cancel-culture and gets people fired or not promoted- people who aren’t always celebs. They censor people. Its a modern-day witch burning or Maoist weeding out of anyone would disagrees. I think of Biden as Left, but what degree is he? idk. He’s nothing but a figurehead like most presidents are. I think the Left would be largely without power if the Right wouldn’t be so domineering…and, vice versa. Its like being kids and watching your parents have a big fight that continues to escalate to the point of insanity - each trying to out-maneveur or out-do the other. The kids just stand by cringing, thinking, “holy shit, I have the DNA of both of those lunatics”. You both hate them and begin to hate yourself for being a reluctant passive party to it. But, I also think conglomerates and other BIGGG players (central banks, IMF, WEF) are controlling or heavily influencing the left and right. They bait the Left and Right and the fools take the bait. They divide and conquer and are a bit outside of that Left or Right box.
I think that group is the one with drones, and the ones who orchestrate those wars. i fear another war within the next 5 years - maybe including Russia, Ukraine, and the Middle East. I suppose we ‘need’ more oil, so need that land access to where the oil pipelines will go. I say “need”. because most Americans have far too much crap already.
The only problem with this, is that it is objectively false: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/big-business-is-getting-bigger/
Concentration of ownership in business is at highs we haven’t seen since the Gilded Age. That isn’t even an opinion, it’s a measurable fact.
I don’t think you’re really understanding what people mean when they talk about “capitalism”. Capitalism isn’t simply “big business” or “small business” or even “government versus business”, because Capitalism is enforced and upheld by Government. Here is a short video by an economics professor that might help clarify what leftists mean when they talk about “capitalism”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnY_ZqJ64cI
You might consider him left but Leftists, or at least the kind of people who self identify as Leftists on Lemmy would disagree with you strongly.
No, the IMF, central banks, and WEF are capitalists. They are right wing. They are exactly what Leftists oppose. They are not outside of divide between Left and Right. They ARE the basis of opposition. You are literally complaining about Capitalism.
I thnk definitions/words matter a lot. The original meaning of capitalism was to own capital - any one. Owning a home or a small business is owning capital. I suppose owning stocks, bonds, or crypto may also fall under that category. The modern definition of the word seems to be BigBiz and/or conglomerate. I despise those and do not consider those capitalist. If we cannot agree on defintions, that confuses things. I am very well aware that money and power is being consolidated. I used to pass around those charts showing that and other charts showing what conglomerates own now (there are about 5 who own most brands, services, media, banks, etc). I call that fascism because anti-monopoly laws, anti-trust laws have not been enforced by government and BigBiz is now in a loose parnerships of sorts with government. They may not be the same, but they are danged-near twins or kissing-cousins. When BigBiz works closely with government that can be called an oligarchy or fascism. I’d guess I am leaving out various other terminology such as mixed economy. I just watched the video and was relieved that he agreed that not agreeing on definitions confuses conversation. But, he made it seem too clear cut - as though only social or capitalism existed. Nothng is that neat or all-or-nothing. the IMF, central banks, and WEF bait the common citizen with concepts about Utopia and equality (which are good to an extent), but are about their own gain and nothing more. They are FASCISTs who pander to the patriotism of the Right and the egalitarianism of the Left. Both are ways to manipulate people and tell them they are worth either the same as others or even more than others. I oost my home, but when I owned it, I was a capitalist. If I owned my own tiny bakery, that, too, would make me a captialist because I thought I had the right to own capital. That cabal of thugs called central bankers are above the right or left wing concept and use it to their benefit. Yes, they want money, but they also want 95% of the population to be EQUAL (equal outcomes, not equal opportunity…equally poor and powerless. They bait us - show us what we want, tell us we are good little boys and girls for wanting that and that they’ll help us get it. But, they trick us and lie, cheat, and steal. Wanting to be rich and powerful for yourself while not allowing others to own capital or speak freely is not capitalism. It is assholery. Not saying wikipedia is always right, but this is close enough this time: Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership and control of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system determined by supply and demand, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.
No where does it say government showing favoritism to FB or Google in exchange for forking over our private data. Nowhere does it say forgiveness of taxes to Amazon or government contracts to this or that company in exchange for major campaign donations and for hiring your brother as vice-CEO. Perhaps CRONY-captialism is closer to what you mean? Crony-capitalism is unethical.
I am also using “capitalism” to refer to capital ownership, but it is more than that. Capitalism is the rulership of capital owners over those who do not own capital. Owning your own house or tools is not capitalism, unless you want to argue that communism or worker coops are just another form of capitalism.
As I and most leftists use the term, yeoman farmer is not a capitalist. A plantation owner who rents out their land to sharecroppers is a capitalist.
This isn’t new. This is how things have always been. Capitalism has always fundamentally been a creature of the State. The whole point of the State is to enforce property rights and uphold capital. Literally the first corporations to historically exist, like the East India Trade Company were just extensions legal monopolies granted by the State.
Yeah sure, I want free markets. Markets free of monopoly and economic rent seeking. But capitalism isn’t markets.
I think Dr. Wolff would be the first to admit that there isn’t a simple binary here. But there is also a distinction.
I don’t think you’ll find any self identified lefitsts who like the IMF. The IMF is a notorious tool of capitalism through it’s use of predatory loans to developing nations that it then forces to privatize their industry (IE: Capitalism) The IMF is capitalist. They are literally the world leader in taking socially owned resources and converting them into privately owned capital.
And yes, you are right… this is fascism. Or at least the precursor to it. Fascism arises out of capitalism historically.
You were not a capitalist as I, most leftists, or most economists would use the term. If you want to use the term that way that’s your deal but it’s nonstandard and doesn’t’ conform to historical use.
I often see people on the internet who conceive of themselves as “centrist” or “neither right or left” or perhaps “alt right” or some other variation, tout this line about “equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity”.
It is a meaningless piece of rhetoric. No one on the Left cares about “equality of outcomes” over “equality of opportunity”. In fact, most leftists don’t even really think the concept of “equality” of any kind of very useful.
This misunderstanding you are operating under is so common there’s a wikipedia article covering it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome#Conflation_with_Marxism,_socialism_and_communism
I’ll quote it here:
Ultimately the concept of “equality of outcome” versus “equality of opportunity” is a pretty useless concept. What exactly is the difference between the two? People can slice any particular set of arrangements anyway they like. Is providing universal free childhood education “equality of opportunity” or of “outcome”. People will argue either way depending on what position they hold beforehand and there’s no meaningful way to actually define it one way or the other.
Government doesn’t show favoritism to FB or google because those companies give the government our private data. They show favoritism to them because they are “job creators”. This of course is bullshit. Henry Ford wasn’t a job creator, the customers who bought his cars were. And Henry Ford wasn’t a car creator, the workers who worked in his factory were. Capitalists are parasites who neither work, nor consume. They merely hold Capital.
Government favors Capital because Government’s job is to protect Capital. It enforces private property rights through a monopoly of violence.
The current obsession with “cancel culture” is a constant cause of amusement for me. It’s largely a myth born out of the far right’s attempt to push back against progress on LGBTQ+ issues, BIPOC anti-oppression, etc and it’s only very slightly clever in the sense that it’s caught on. Whereas 5, 10, 15 years ago “cancel culture” was simply referred to as…consequences: Someone did something scandalous, or disgraceful, and people were in uproar, and withheld their custom, and basically boycotted. But as an attempt to protect their bigoted (and increasingly inappropriate and outdated) views, right-wingers have attempted to rebrand consequences as “cancel culture” - and it’s caught on. And if it’s successful? Well then people will be able to get away with saying or doing what they want with consequences eliminated; they’ll be able to get away with, abusing, harassing, tormenting, torturing, or inciting hatred as much as they want, again, without consequence - and that fascism becomes the dominant culture (yes, we’ve been here before in history). But that’s basically what the aim of the rebrand is. It’s pretty simple, if not obvious.
Interesting. I guess it depends on how people define “left” and “right” and whether they see them as having equal dominance in our capitalist world. Some claim China to be communist whereas it’s essentially state capitalism and still an oppressive hierarchical system. I am essentially, I guess, what people might define as a libertarian socialist or anarcho-communist, so some might see me as very leftist, whereas others still claim Corbynistas or Bernie supporters or even Democrats in general are leftist - many social democrats and even centre-right politicians claim to be socialists or leftists.
Centrism has protected the capitalist status quo for so long it’s arguably stifled meaningful alternatives and contributed to the emergence of Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro, conspiracy theorists, Covid denialists, and fascism. Free speech doesn’t include hate speech. Those intolerant views shouldn’t be tolerated because that itself leads to the eradication of tolerance (too numerous examples from history on that one).
To push safe spaces into the shadows is to cede ground culturally to such bigotry - in fact, the bigotry is what must be pushed away, with no room to breathe. In a fairer, non-hierarchical, anarchist society, rather than the current capitalist status quo of destruction, I think people’s troubles would be tackled, and we’d find people weren’t, at their core, intolerant or bigoted, they were just discontent and couldn’t comprehend why. Fascism preys on the poor and exploits their irrational fears.
We must ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in, and act on it - “build the new world in the shell of the old.” So codes of conduct and safe spaces online are really very important, and the broader they become, the more common they become, and the more positive change is achieved.
look: the cancel-culture has gone too far! I agreed with Whoopi saying Jews are white. i had a fling with a Syrian Sephardi jew (hung like a camel - to quote his own cousin) and he was WHITE. not as pale as me and maybe a bit darker-skinned than most Ashkenazim, but he and they are/were white. that is a neutral statement and neither good nor bad. its a fact - although scientists say race as we describe it today is incorrect and that there is only the human race, but people only like science when they cherrypick facts. Some Jews say they aren’t a race (again, race is scientifically inaccurate0, but an ethnicity. So, on job or gov’t applications, does it list Jew as ethncity? If so, where is Slav? Slavs are the largest ethnic group in Europe and often the butt of jokes (Poles, at least). Or, Mayan. Mayans aren’t Mexican, but Mayan and once had their own nation. Mayans aren’t Incan…many Incans and Mayans are now Mexican, but they have their own ethnicity. Not all native Americans share the same DNA - mainly since there were 2+ Berengian crossings…so, many tribes have their own ethnicty. So, why are Jews able to suspend Whoopi? I am no fan of Whoopi, but she said nothing wrong. Whoopi is an example among many. People talk about ableism, yet autistic people and some personality types have some trouble differentiating these new isms, these tiny distinctions. Why was it okay for a doctor to label a patient ‘mentally removed’ 20 years ago, but the same doctor today would be called politically incorrect for calling a man with Down’s Syndrome ‘mentally removed’ when he works in a facility with others who are ‘mentally removed’ but do not have Down’s Syndrome. They are in a subgroup. Why can I get called ethnocentric (or worse) for saying eating dogs in the USA should remain illegal, but when a Korean (a few said it) says it, he is just stating an opinion. Supposedly, because Asians (and now some Africans) eat dogs and cats in their native lands, they think they should be able to eat them here, too…and breed or cage them for meat. Those are just examples. But, I promised myself upon signing up that I wouldn’t discuss controversial topics, but here I am breaking my own rule.
That’s a fair point but I think it’s important to create some clear distinctions here in how this these software projects are analyzed and compared.
lemmy.ml is a left leaning community. There is nothing about lemmy itself, it’s design or implementation that make it left leaning inherently. If a right winger wanted to start a lemmy instance they could.
deleted by creator
hmmm, good idea. a libertarian instance might be nice. I dislike left and right equally. Both are too demanding and intrusive. i’ll let the right do thier own thing without me.
What would distinguish a libertarian instance from lemmy.ml in your opinion?
less censorship. less “that’s not okay here”. less throwing around of sentences or words that are meant to silence you (as though by silencing you, that changes you!). Smacking people over the head with your “truth” works for some, but makes enemies of others. Libertarians usually don’t do that. They discuss things and each of us learns or understands better - even if we don’t change our minds, we don’t shut down conversation and can become more tolerant because now we understand how the other feels or thinks without the drama of name-calling, crying/shouting, shunning/shame…those are manipulative tactics that insult one’s intelligence. There has been a feeling on most social media that what I say is being logged to be used against me for the cancel-culture to use and/or that I cannot speak freely. I’ve almost given up on social media…or, on humans. Lemmy.ml isn’t so far left that I cannot handle it, but I really like open dialogue and think I am open-minded enough to learn from it - if it is presented in a logical, precise, timely (blunt, short) manner.
I think there’s a difference between censorship and safe spaces if there are codes of conduct and everyone knows what they’re signing up for. With the current dominance of capitalism, neoliberalism, and the rising threat of the far right, I have no desire to spend my time online in areas where that’s merely reflected and regurgitated. In fact, the only reason I joined Lemmy was because I understood it to be leftist or anarchist friendly and I’m really utterly sick and tired of seeing FOSS forums infested with intolerance and hate speech. So the idea of a space where people can just ignore pronouns, or use transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, antisemitic, Islamophobic language because to stop them is labeled “cancel culture” is quite abhorrent to me, though there are loads of such places online already existing and thriving. Telegram is full of white supremacist and bigoted channels and groups and the far right flow freely through corporate media, so if I can just for once not have to deal with that shit, that’d be nice. (Thanks Lemmy, keep up the good work)
I’ve never seen a FOSS forum with any hate speech - no even on ruqqus, which had loads of jerks.
I do not like religion at all, because I am an atheist,female, and love animals and freedom: so I think they offend me more than vice-versa. If i went around saying I was in a group that revolted around a book that advocated violence, lying, stealing/invading, murder, rape, slavery, pedaphelia, and sexism (for fun, lets pretend its a rightwing book), i bet people would hate me. Why is it okay under the umbrella of religion? because its old? Is it only Jews and Islamists who are protected?
I recently saw a video of a small segment of Hindus drinking cow piss for their health. If I drank cow piss (or my own piss) in public like they did, would I be excused without using religion as an excuse? Who says who is excused and why? Who is the arbiter of truth and justice? In some nonAbrahamic relgions, animals are still sacrificed in public. Are those religions exempt from your scrutiny, because they are a religion? And, how old does a religion have to be to be beyond criticism? Is Scientology too young?
You want your own safe space, but I bet you think a man built like a linebacker should be able to use the ladies room as long as he is dressed like a female. But, wait - some women dress like men, so that gets confusing. Sometimes I dress like a man. Do I get to use the men’s room when i am dressed like a man when there is a mile-long line to the women’s room? Who gets to jedge whether my clothes are male enough, though? Must my hair also be male? But, what if I am gender-fluid and want to keep my hair longer for tomorrow when i’ll be female again? Some biological men wear their hair long, though, and wear earrings. So, where is the rule book that designates all of this?
Do you see my point?
No not at all. You’ve presented bizarre examples in order to justify transphobia and Islamophobia. I can’t really help you.