I really don’t understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook’s power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.
Anyway, I don’t think this law would reduce Meta’s power if the company cooperated, because if Meta only falls under the law if it has power then news organizations have an incentive to make sure it keeps enough power to keep the law applicable and keep getting them paid.
I really don’t understand the people who rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18.
Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren’t grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.
(on an open source social media platform of all places!)
Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn’t like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?
No it wouldn’t become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that’s wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.
Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.
Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.
As much as humans don’t like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.
Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.
If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.
Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process correctly? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process appropriately? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
I’m trying to be delicate, but the misguided rhetoric you are advocating is commonly used to justify violent, psychopathic, and misogynistic behaviour. You need to stop thinking of human social relationships as transactional. They are not. You could really hurt someone if this is genuinely what you believe.
I really don’t understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook’s power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.
This seems relevant: My Distaste For Your Solution Does Not Mean Disregard For The Problem
Anyway, I don’t think this law would reduce Meta’s power if the company cooperated, because if Meta only falls under the law if it has power then news organizations have an incentive to make sure it keeps enough power to keep the law applicable and keep getting them paid.
Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren’t grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.
Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn’t like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?
No it wouldn’t become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that’s wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.
Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.
Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.
As much as humans don’t like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.
Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.
If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.
Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.
Yes, you might want to speak to a psychologist or psychotherapist before you do something that you may later come to regret.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process correctly? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process appropriately? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.
I’m trying to be delicate, but the misguided rhetoric you are advocating is commonly used to justify violent, psychopathic, and misogynistic behaviour. You need to stop thinking of human social relationships as transactional. They are not. You could really hurt someone if this is genuinely what you believe.