• 1 Post
  • 43 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle




  • Tolerance is not an absolute rule, but a social contract. Members of a tolerant society agree to tolerate others so long as others do the same. When someone violates the contract by being intolerant they cannot then proceed to hide behind that same contract for protection.

    At some point a judgement has to be made about what is tolerant and what is not, and that is a judgement we make collectively as upholders of the social contract.


  • Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly?

    Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I’m a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.

    Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain

    You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or “intellectual property” if we’re being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.

    If copyright was not tradeable or transferable

    Then it wouldn’t be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.


  • At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn’t. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people’s livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.









  • Schmoo@slrpnk.netto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Users have no idea what they want” was an actual, frequent quote from them.

    It’s because they’re not designing for the users’ wants, they’re designing for the users’ engagement (or whatever flawed metric they use to determine that). The designers mindlessly equate what keeps the user engaged with what the user wants.




  • I think it’s the same issue as conservatives suddenly realizing their favorite band or movie/tv franchise is gasp woke!

    They passively consume media without analyzing it beyond the surface level, then are personally offended that they were “baited” into consuming what they see as woke propaganda.

    Then they also notice a trend of more overt progressive elements in media because of an increase in surface-level corporate pandering, and they blame “wokeness” for bad storytelling without realizing people who are actually woke hate the shallow pandering too.