canopic jug writes:
Aral Balkan has a blog post about
taking small steps to end surveillance capitalism. In particular he focuses on the need for federated services. He points out that the move to re-decentralize the WWW is difficult and needs to start at the beginning, using a comparison of Apple's original computers to their latest generation of tablets as an illustration.
Five years ago, when I decided to devote myself to tackling the problem of surveillance capitalism, it was clear what we needed: convenient and beautiful ethical everyday things that provide seamless experiences1 on fully free-as-in-freedom stacks.This is as true today as it was then and it will remain so. The only way to compete with unethical products built by organisations that have control over hardware + software + services is to create ethical organisations that have control over hardware + software + services and thus have at least the possibility to craft competitive experiences. We remove our eyes from this goal at our peril.
Five years ago, when I decided to devote myself to tackling the problem of surveillance capitalism, it was clear what we needed: convenient and beautiful ethical everyday things that provide seamless experiences1 on fully free-as-in-freedom stacks.
This is as true today as it was then and it will remain so. The only way to compete with unethical products built by organisations that have control over hardware + software + services is to create ethical organisations that have control over hardware + software + services and thus have at least the possibility to craft competitive experiences. We remove our eyes from this goal at our peril.
Related: Tim Berners-Lee Launches Inrupt, Aims to Create a Decentralized Web
damn liberals and their elitist surveillance profiteering!
"people tend to centralize."They need something to blame, outside themselves, when things go wrong.
"people tend to centralize."
They need something to blame, outside themselves, when things go wrong.
Seriously, that is one stupid statement and even if you were going for funny/witty it falls flat. The answer is convenience, nothing more.
The answer is convenience...
And dat too! The convenience of passing blame... It's all part of the same show. You don't have to get all stressed out over it. "Liberals" and "conservatives" have nothing to do with the prices of rice here.
No one uses facebook because it is convenient to pass blame. That is not a part of the decision making process when anyone signs up.
Are you confusing people blaming FB for privacy violations with motivation to use their service??
Yes, there are some people that choose a closed source program over open source precisely to have somebody to blame when support is insufficient. Can't say if it's true for Facebook, but it does help Microsoft's sales figures.
Submissive people look for (central) leaders for many reasons. Passing blame is one of them, even if it is mostly subconscious.
your view of reality is warped
How is it warped? He (assuming this is a he, here...) has a very solid point.
Choosing a vendor because they have enterprise support is not the same thing as choosing them so you can pass the blame. That concept flies a tiny bit with an OS vendor but not at all with FB. All i was saying is people are not using a centralized soci media service so they can blame anyone, that is zero % of the rationale.
Jeezus! It's psych 101. People look for authority figures so they can become blobs and let somebody else take the fall. Are you so willfully blind to basics?
Take that libertarian trash somewhere else.
Oh! sorry, did I do that?
C'mon man. Try to cough up something better than that
Ditto Sir, Edge Lord Sir!
Permission to speak freely sir? Thank you sir. Your fedora is tipped at a weird angle sir!
Much better, gracias...
That isn't libertarian trash. It's fairly well-known and well-demonstrated that people usually prefer to act in this manner. I have not a clue why but suspect it's something to do with the energetic path of least resistance, i.e., this uses the least energy so our bodies favor it.
Humans group together and form power hierarchies. I'll agree with that.
While "let me be a blob and let someone else do all the work and take all the blame" may be true for a small minority of humans it is by no means the average. That line of negative thinking towards humanity leads to tyranny and class structures.
"People WANT me to be a dictator and therefore I can do whatever I want! GOD WILLS IT!"
Azuma you present a much more sane version with "suspect it's something to do with the energetic path of least resistance". In a communal structure people take on various roles. You are correct, it is about efficiency.
Fustakirich is not correct, it is not all about humans debasing themselves so they can be lazy couch potatoes. It is a little bit of a nit-picky distinction on my part but I feel it is very important.
Eh, no worse than yours, or any other of the 7.5 billion's.
Yes, there are some people that choose a closed source program over open source precisely to have somebody to blame when support is insufficient.
Only in corporate environments. Private people usually just blame "the computer" if something doesn't work.
Let ua bring this back to your post that started this:
people tend to centralize.They need something to blame, outside themselves, when things go wrong.
people tend to centralize.
You walked this back a little but it is still a very minor aspect of anything. Choosing a service for support is not the same as choosing one to blame. That is an edgy comment for when you want to sound insightful at a party.
Bla bla bla, if this is a party, where's my beer??
Please, enough of your silly games, just read and at least make a feeble effort to comprehend what was written to avoid needless repetition. Fundamentals are important.
You complain a lot with very little substance. Back to your Olivye.
Have a read of cognitive dissonance. It's very well established in the literature
Simply put, most people have a far higher opinion of themselves than they really deserve
Ok back up that claim, what is your reasoning to support the claim that people use FB because they could blame them for, what exactly?
It's easy enough to set up your own blog at your own website, but were you to do that you'd have to accept the blame for fucking it up.
I think this whole argument is just two sides of the same coin. I still maintain people are making their choices out of convenience, not the more negative aspect of being able to blame the service if things go wrong; but you could say that blaming the service IS the convenience.
I think you are conflating the idea that people look for blame when things go wrong with the motivating principle that gets them to set things up in the first place. When electing politicians we aren't looking for someone we can easily blame, but when things go wrong we definitely start looking for the easy targets.
All I am saying is that people are NOT choosing to use centralized social media so they can blame them, people choose those services because they are conveniently easy to access and often have their friends and family with them. That was the original argument, not some exercise in cognitive dissonance. Which btw please go look it up, it was a little more detailed than I thought it was and you definitely used it wrong.
Now is the time for Salty Spice to sell boiled peanuts on the street corner.
PS: you run scripts to check for replies? last I checked SN doesn't notify you of AC replies.