• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle


  • Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

    On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

    On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

    Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.



  • I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?



  • Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.


  • Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

    • Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
    • Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
    • More ID checking to “protect minor”

    And if you want details :

    The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

    • preventing children to access porn
    • punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
    • punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
    • preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
    • regulating the market of cloud storage providers
    • regulating gambling and real-money video games
    • preventing phishing

    They have different actions at their disposal :

    • Fines for website admins who do not comply
    • Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
    • Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
    • Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
    • Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
    • Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
    • Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
    • It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
    • It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
    • Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

    Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.


  • I’m not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I’m not entirely sure of what i’m saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

    From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don’t know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

    Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

    So first “professional” photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part “new” customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

    So at first, they did not really stole painters’ jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

    At that point, some of the painter’s client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn’t “dry” (don’t know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

    So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

    I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).



  • Hey, noobie question here, I dont know much about fediverse, so don’t mind correct me :

    Is it a good thing ?

    I first had the feeling that it ain’t, but everybody in the comment section seems happy with it. My knowledge of the Fediverse is this :

    • Federation aims to decentralization
    • The aim beyond decentralization is to prevent one entity (like Reddit) to have too much power over the content created and shared.
    • When Meta said they wanted to connect Threads to the fediverse, people seemed concerned and/or opposed to it. It seemed coherent to me as the federation with Meta was seen as a danger for decentralization, because a big entity could have access to the content. (I feel like I probably misunderstood that part though).

    Now, I (personnally) consider that any state is as a big entity as big companies, and that we should feel as much concerned about their power over content and informations. This is of course debatable and maybe the origin of my misunderstanding.

    So here’s my true question : do i miss any point in this, that could make me understand why you consider it a good thing ?


  • I’m not an expert on how the social media make money, but from what i know it is created upon the information they gather (either personnal information or content, that they can then sell to advertisers or thing like that). So the more data they collect, the more they are able to sell i guess ? And i think that because fediverse already generates data for free (and will do so more and more), people in the business of selling this kind of data are eager to get access it Only my humble opinion, not sure at all if this is theway it works