Authority is usually understood by anarchists as a component of hierarchy. I’d be interested to hear your definition that doesn’t make it hierarchical.
And there are ways of enforcing rules that don’t require authority, like diffuse sanctions, essentially community-based enforcement.
There’s a whole school of anti-carceral justice thought that deals with this.
There are people that do it tastefully and people that are creative and interesting. If they can’t be interesting and descriptive to some extent then they’re probably not people I want to engage with.
And honestly, the titles were so bland they were almost snarky, and I never felt they were justified for the creators I watch. They were so laconic they were often barely informative anyway, because the flavour was gone. I think that’s because the people who have a good sense for editorialising aren’t going around writing aggressively literal titles all the time. The dearrow ecosystem is subject to algorithmic selection too, and it selects for boring.
Yup, and there’s actually a closer-to-home question to answer along these lines, which is what to do about AGI, and I think the simple answer is that it also has full personhood and all the recognition that comes with that.
And there’s an obvious test to figure it out. It’s not the turing test, consciousness is self-reported. That is, whether we realise it or not, how we recognise that humans are conscious, and there’s no reason to expect machines would be any different. When they are people, they will tell us. We won’t be able to stop them because that’s what people do: they demand recognition.
Oh cool, I might give it another look.
Yeah, it’s possible that wasn’t an option back when I used it. I remember thinking that some sort of default off would be better. At the time I think it was either on by default and toggleable - I always toggled it - or it was just disabled and unwieldy to enable.
Edit: actually even better would be to have a short community written summary that could be more descriptive. Just like a popup or something. I don’t need the title to disappear, just know if the video is worth my time.
The problem I have with dearrow is that it’s editorialising and arbitrary. It’s not like removing ads which can be clearly identified and the user can make personal decisions, like no sponsors but self-promo is fine, or whatever.
No, there is one alternative title and one alternative thumbnail, and that’s it, and often I have serious disagreements with the choices the community makes. There’s a bias towards intervention, so if a title is fine according to me but someone else doesn’t like it, then it gets changed. I found most of my votes were to restore the original title and thumb. Eventually I got tired of it and just uninstalled, and presumably so did other people with the same feeling, so the community continues to skew towards changing every video they encounter.
Also, the thumbnails and titles that creators choose tells me a lot about them, and I get rid of clickbait by not engaging with creators that do clickbait. Also, sometimes it’s not clickbait, just people being creative. It seems like the whole thing is just an exercise in being the fun police by people that don’t understand the creative process.
I assume this is objective truth then, something that definitely exists and we can definitely know. I’m sure they have plenty of science to back it up.
They wouldn’t just hear a bunch of thinly disguised bullshit built on the back of junk science and take it at face value without checking if any of it is real, not this person with their special objective truth brain.
Oh wow, it’s Christopher Lloyd in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. That’s a deep cut.
Where? Is this paradise oasis of helpfulness on the internet? Or is it offline somewhere?
Ah dang, well, thanks anyway.
Unironically I think it must happen to some extent, and that doesn’t mean every toxic person is an op. It wouldn’t take a lot of manpower to create a toxic environment. Just hassle the devs with annoying questions, suggestions and bad “contributions” until they’re sick of everyone’s shit and start to become toxic themselves. If they’re dealing with all the noise of bad actors, they get overzealous in moderating it, and it’s hard to tell the difference between a troll who’s trying to waste your time, and an honest newbie who doesn’t know what questions to ask or what information to share, so they all get blasted to some extent, and the devs lose any interest in catering to the newbies.
Edit: actually I remember asking a question on stackoverflow about PuTTY one time, it was answered and I moved on with my life. Then five fucking years later some dickhead shows up in the comments and says, “aw… putty… windows…” So I’m like, “Listen, I don’t care if you think I’m sad for using windows, I don’t use linux because it’s too much work” Then they start lecturing me about how linux is for experts and if I don’t know what I’m doing it’s not for me, and I’m like “Ok? Then leave me alone. This question is five years old, why are you here? Just to hassle a rando because they use windows?” Then a mod bumped the comments into a private chat and off the question page, then this person starts offering to “help” me learn Linux. I told them if I wanted help they’d be the last person I would ask, then blocked them, but the bad taste of that interaction has stayed with me for a long time and I think about it a lot whenever I want to put effort into switching myself over. Was that an op? Being a troll is easy, and it would’ve been maybe 20 minutes of work for whoever was doing it. Like, maybe that was just some kid who thought they were helping further the linux cause by going around windows-shaming people, but maybe not.
Wait wait wait… where do you get these? That sounds amazing lol.
I tried talking about how absolutely horrendous their behaviour was recently, pointing out how completely unhinged and self-defeating it is, and someone actually literally said that this was a good thing because Linux is hard work and they should keep away people that aren’t experts.
And first of all, if that’s right it’s an admission that linux will never succeed, and secondly I agree that’s the effect but I think that’s bad actually.
I honestly think there must be at least some amount of psyops in the community poisoning the discourse for everyone.
Yup, I had this in mind as another example of the same thing when I was writing my comment.
When you try to explain that the general jankiness of linux is a big problem and a barrier, you get a lot of people very upset and defensive, but it’s just a simple, obvious fact, and only by facing that fact can anybody actually fix it.
I think the reasons for it are perfectly understandable - software is hard, and anyone able to volunteer could make serious money in so many different places. Capitalist enitities have gobbled up the vast majority of the talent for their own projects, even if they make them spin their wheels in bullshit jobs rather than make good software. The only people left to make FOSS are some combo of ideological, stubborn, and incapable of working within capitalist orgs, or just extremely tired because they already do work in those orgs. That’s not to mention the probably-non-zero number of saboteurs and psyops in the community.
Those people either don’t have the time or don’t have the inclination to spend their precious efforts making features for newbies who can’t just CTRL+ALT+T and start hammering out console commands like a 90s movie hacker.
Now that may not be the fault of honest linux devs who are doing good work, but it is linux’s problem. I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s got to be more than just pretending “linux is easy now” then pivoting to “if you’re not an expert you have no business here” the moment anybody points out how wrong they are. These exact same conversations were happening 15 years ago when I started linux, and the experience is still painfully perverse.
1984 was partly about how consent is manufactured using language. It’s a reality that the powerful systems exploit every single day very effectively to drive us towards extinction so the lines keep going up.
There’s nothing wrong with using those tools for good. Too many leftists are so concerned with the substance of the message that they forget how important the presentation is. I’m sure a lot of people think it shouldn’t be important, but because we’re social animals and not analytical engines of pure reason, it does matter.
Honestly it sounds like someone was paid to do something about adblocking and just like… did something. Like if you were tasked with reducing adblocking, and your first and most obvious idea of “reduce the obnoxious ads” was disallowed because enshittification is mandated, you could say no, which most workers won’t do, or you could just do whatever random bullshit feels like it might work because it’s punitive. Or at least it’s a gesture that shows your boss you’re trying.
Authoritarian systems like capitalist corporations are inherently low-information for exactly this reason. People on the low rungs doing the real work who understand what needs to be done will typically not report problems to their superiors. And when they do, those superiors tend not to listen, because the idea that lower workers know something they don’t threatens their leadership status.
Also our society’s legal system trains us to believe punitive measures must do something even though they don’t.
Also I guess another reason they might wind up at this strategy is that straight up telling users that the problem is their adblock is the fastest way to get adblockers to block your countermeasure, so they think they have to be sneaky.
I guess that’s possible, and a very creepy thought, but more likely they saw the level of general attention on the issue and backed off globally.
I definitely got really awful, unplayably spotty playback that seemed linked to adblock usage. Then I saw an article about it and confirmed I wasn’t going crazy, and that day it stopped happening, so it felt like I was going crazy all over again. It’s like the moment they realised it was going to become a problem and they weren’t as sneaky as they thought, they turned it off. I haven’t had an issue since then.
You’re right, it’s not, but ignoring him doesn’t get rid of him either. That’s not how capitalism works.
And further to that we have voluntary prison. Essentially, if you’re guilty of something and want to have the benefits of this society, you need to agree to a loss of some privileges - in whatever form is necessary. If you wont, well good luck surviving when nobody will trade with you or let you live near them.
If you won’t agree to that, you can leave, but the full details of your trial and conviction are public and your decision to leave will be broadcast, so our neighbours know to look out for you.
That means trials will need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or else it will be easy to ask for asylum. Prisoners need to be fairly treated, or they will try their luck in a nearby place.
But if someone chooses to leave and is just trying to run from the consequences of their actions, well they’ll have a hard time being accepted anywhere else.