Why don’t you asked them yourself? !askchapo@hexbear.net

Probably a bad idea to ask about a Marxist instance on a .world community, since .world is known to be quite biased against Marxism.

Sorry! I added it now.

Nobody “owns” land. Even under capitalism. If you think you do, stop paying the rent tax you pay the government in order to “own” that land and see what happens.

Point is, even if you “own” a house, if the government decides they want to confiscate it, they have a whole army to do it. All ownership is always at the mercy of the government. (More accurately, ownership is at the mercy of whoever has the monopoly on violence, since they can only take ownership through it.)

Hummm… Maybe I could find some videos showing some class warfare. Let me see… Found some tangential ones.

The Reason You’re Poor (It’s more than just taxes)

Welfare: For them, but not for you!(How YOU Subsidize Everything)

America’s Unemployment Problem

Landlord arguments suck (Debunking Arguments Landlords Use to Justify Their Existence)

This is what could find in a short period of time. Hope it helps? You should defensively read up on class struggle.

So you don’t like schools, roads, public healthcare, having a police force to protect the citizens? You realize taxes pay for those right? And without them, if you get robbed, there will be no police to help you.

Also, did you know the bourgeoisie steal way more from you than the taxes you pay?

I could spend an hour writing a long winded explanation of why capitalists “earn” their wealth through wage theft… but Comrade Hakim already made a video that explains this concept pretty well so here.

You are severally over-estimating the computer skills of the general population. Here is some data on that.

You seem to have forgotten to consider the long term effects of repeatedly voting for the lesser evil.

We have been moving further right every election and you haven’t noticed. Voting for the same two factions of the same party won’t and has never changed anything.

I could spent a bunch of time writing this in text, but I hope these two images give you a good picture.

The bare minimum to stop fascism is to actually solve the root of the problem. As we all know, things aren’t going very well. The world can be an unfair place and these injustices can cause quite a bit of frustration, and this frustration causes a want for change. If things aren’t well, we want to change them.

However, some people are benefiting immensely in our current system, at the expense of others, and would, therefore, like to keep thing exactly the way they are. As such, they would like to find a way to counteract this movement for change. And that’s where fascism comes into the picture.

Instead of actually solving the problem, those in power choose to instead blame some small minority for the countries shortcomings. To do so they make use of many tactics, too many to explain here, but they are always changing their wording to plant that thought-seed in the minds of the people. The though-seed being the idea that, in the past, the country was way way better than today and the reason why things have been declining is due to some “intruders” who have corrupted the “purity” of the country.

Obviously, since that minority who is being scapegoated isn’t responsible for the countries problems, things do not improve very much. As such the complaining starts again. And again a minority is blamed. This cycle of blaming continues until the country just collapses into a dictatorship, where the only ones part of the us are the dictator as his cronies.

This is how I look at fascism anyways. Now, this problem is systemic, which implies a problem with the system itself. As such, we will need to fix the system in other to solve the problem, and voting for the two parties who benefit from the system will not do anything.

have you ever tried to fresh install windows on a pc or laptop that didn’t have an OS

Thing is, most non-Linux users didn’t install their OS: It came with the machine.

Unfortunately, most have never installed an OS and so have no frame of reference of how difficult it should be. The majority just turn on the machine and the OS is already there, so for them, anything more complicated than that is already harder than what they expect.

Also, hardware compatibility. There is no easy way to know how compatible a given machine is. If the common user installs Linux and runs into compatibility problems immediately, then that will make them think Windows is better, because it doesn’t have those issues.

For Linux to reach mass adoption it needs to come pre-installed on machines or else it’s just too much to ask from the masses. Also, never underestimate tech illiteracy.

It is true that Windows is harder to install than Linux, but most don’t install Windows: It came with the machine.

Removed by mod

Yup… right what I suspected! The Slippery Slope Fallacy!

Whats gonna happens when politicians realize kids are just gonna click “I’m at least [Age]”?

Many pornography work like that and can, as such, be easily bypassed. But does that mean we should drop the age restriction for access to pornography? Of course not!

Here is another example:

Murder. Murder shouldn’t be legal and it is not. However, despite this restriction, some find ways to get away with murder. Does that mean that laws against murder are useless since we cannot stop murder 100% of the time? I highly doubt it.

It is impossible for any law enforcement to prevent 100% of all crimes, but that is not justification for those law to not exist.

Either you have a toothless law, or you live in a country with Great Firewall of China.

False dilemma fallacy.

Again, I’ll refer to pornography. Many pornography work on the trust system. By your logic, that means we should drop all laws restricting access to it. However, that is absurd.

The point isn’t to stop 100% of all usage. It is simply there to reduce the usage. You are forgetting that we are talking about human beings. Beings which have a natural tendency to conform to social norms as to not be cast out of their tribe (since humans cannot survive in the wild without each other, such would be a death sentence).

This law would set the societal precedent that people need to be of a certain age to access these social media apps (as shown by scientific data, which revealed that social media usage can have many negative effects on a developing mind). This societal precedent will, hopefully, make it taboo for people bellow 16 to access social media, which will, in turn, reduce, but not outright 100% stop, underage social media usage.

???

How is restricting access behind an age requirement the same as the “Great Firewall”. Right now, as we speak, you cannot use social media until you are 13. They are just increasing that requirement to 16.

There are many many many other things that are already lock behind an age restriction and I don’t see you freaking out. Here are a few examples of things locked behind an age restriction:

• alcohol

• gambling

• cigarettes

• pornography

Media has age restrictions. Books have age restrictions, movies have age restrictions, games have age restrictions. Media has had age restrictions for a very long time and it’s high time the same standards are applied to social media.

Just because it isn’t perfect it doesn’t mean it’s useless.

Just because there is no way to stop 100% of all crime it doesn’t mean taking measures to reduce crime is futile.

There is a lot more to this than just blocking the site. It will also change social norms. Right now, if a 14 year old as social media, nobody bats an eye; but with the 16 year requirement, through all the sudden, parents aren’t too comfortable with letting their 14 year old have social media. So not only will they need to find some free VPN totally not spyware to use (and even know that that exists and how to use), they will also have to hide it from their parents, as it is no longer socially acceptable for 14 year olds to have social media.

And before you say “Kids can easily get a free VPN and hide it.” Never underestimate tech illiteracy.

Comrade Hakim made a great video explaining the origins of the term and exploring how it is used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcJ5NrJtQ8g

They are an actually crypto-fascist instance judging by the events the preceded our defederation with them

Crypto-fascists?! The hell did I miss?

“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”

I don’t think that’s what Kieselguhr was trying to say.

As I see it, they are simply pointing out that, when ever the USSR does something bad the west are quick to let you know all about it and how EVIL the USSR is, but when the west does something bad or worst, they don’t seem so eager to let you know about it. It’s not that the west did something bad, it’s that they usually don’t tell you anything about it, but at happy to show the atrocities the others have committed.

But I’m not them so I guess we could ask them to clarify.

I’ve thought for a long time the first thing that someone should read when they try to join Mastodon is “This isn’t like any social media you’ve ever joined. We do things different, and if you read along, you’ll understand why.”

I agree. Usually we present Mastodon and other federated platforms as alternatives to other centralized ones and that makes them expect the exact same experience, since, after all, we told them it was just like the other one.

We need to set the expectation that these federated platforms work in a different manner and as such you need to learn a few things before using it.

Let’s compare on-boarding processes for Mastodon and BlueSky

How to join Mastodon:

• First pick an instance!

User: What is «instance»?

• Lectures user for 10 min. over what federation is, comparing it to email federation

User: Ok… but what instance should I use?

• You gotta figure that out yourself!

User: picks random instance.

Now one of these things happen

1. Every thing goes well

2. They pick a small instance with almost nobody in it, complain that there is no-one there and leave or the instance gets shut down.

3. They pick an instance centered around something they are not interested because they had no info on what each instance is like other than a small description that doesn’t give you a good idea of what the average post is like.

No matter which one happens, if they stick around, things like this will pop up:

Someone will send them a link to a Mastodon post. They click it, but the link they were send was on another instance as such they are logged out. Thing is, they don’t know what federation is and most instances have nearly indistinguishably UI, as thus the user doesn’t notice they are on a completely different site. “Strange”, they think, “I could have sworn I was logged in”. Then they try to log in on the other instance… can’t and get confused and maybe even panic. “Did I just lose my account?”.

Now, with that being said, Email is still an example of a federated platform with mass adoption, and we should use it as an example when explaining the fediverse. But I would like to stress the following point: most instances have nearly indistinguishably UI, as thus the user doesn’t notice they are on a completely different site. Go different Email instances and they look distinct. Go to gmail.com and outlook.com and they look distinct enough so that people can intuitively understand that, although they are both email services, their Gmail account is not going to let them log into Outlook.

Mastodon instances on the other hand? They just brand themselves as “Mastodon” and that’s about it. They look identical! Just LOOK:

No wonder people get confused. The big instances NEED to look distinct for this to work. Otherwise, the federation thing will be confusing.

I made a post on asklemmy asking why people were choosing BlueSky over Mastodon and not understanding federation was one of the major pain points.

Even a big centralized fediverse server is better than yet another walled garden they can’t easily migrate off of.

No it’s not. If a single server holds a critical amount of the fediverse’s content, they can enshitify.

The reason why the fediverse is resilient to enshitification is due to the fact that it makes migration less painful: If you want to abandon Xitter, which is centralized, you will be unable to access Xitter’s content, which is why it took so long for people to abandon it; but if you want to abandon… let’s say… mastodon.world, you can just make an account on another instance and still access the same content. For enshitification to occur, user’s must be locked in, the federation stops that.

However, this system has one major vulnerability which can completely subvert the fediverse’s ability to resist enshitification: centralization of content. If one instance holds a critical amount of content, they can pull up the drawbridge, that is, de-federate from all other instances. You might think this would upset the users, but it wouldn’t. Most wouldn’t know what federation is, all of mainstream is on the default instance, only the computer nerds are on other instances, so if suddenly, the default instance de-federated from everyone else, and thus becomeing a walled garden just like Xitter, few would notice and fewer would care. And now the default instance is centralized just like Xitter and the enshitification cycle repeats.

If you want an example of this look no further than Gmail. More or less 95% all emails are Gmail. If Gmail de-federates from your instance, you are removed; that means Google can basically dictate what other instances are and aren’t allowed to do. If you do something Gmail doesn’t like, they can de-federate and you instance is now basically useless, since you can’t email 95% of people. Gmail could easily kill Proton Mail by de-federating.

just like folks still on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit?

As I said, Lemmy is federalized. Jumping from Twitter to BlueSky/Mastodon or Reddit to Lemmy is difficult due to the network effect. The people you want to follow aren’t posting on BlueSky/Mastodon/Lemmy because there isn’t an audience there. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, Lemmy is federalised, that means you can change instances without loosing access to the people/content you follow. Sure, the fediverse isn’t immune to corporate takeover, but it is more resilient.

Migrating from Reddit means you loose access to all Reddit content. Migrating from .world to, I don’t know…, .ml means nothing sense you can still access .world’s content.

You need the plurality of site content

I wouldn’t say plurality. If the biggest instance only had 10% of total content, that 10% being taken over by a corp wouldn’t kill Lemmy. That 10% would be too little to perform the drawbridge strategy and so people could migrate to a different instance and access the same content.