Current mainstream narratives sell the story that progress is synonymous with betterment, and that the world becomes better for everyone as GDP and economies continue to grow.
Yet, this is an incomplete portrayal that leaves out the dark sides of advancement.
What are the implications when only the victors of history write the narratives of progress and define societal values?
What are the value systems embedded in our institutions and policies, and how do they reinforce the need for ongoing growth at the expense of the natural world and human well-being?
Finally, how do we change these dynamics to form a new, holistic definition of progress that accounts for the connectedness of our planet to the health of our minds, bodies, and communities?
@saul we’re more of a facilitator for that kind of thing. Weird can help make the initial connection, but the message transmission would be left to any of a number of E2EE messengers we’d defer to (by integration), like #matrix, #signal, #Veilid, #polyproto etc.
I think following specific hashtags of a profile would be useful. Technically it's like following a profile but the timeline posts filtered by specific hashtags. Perhaps similar logic on Mastodon, to hiding boosts from profile or filtering posts by subscribed languages.
Could probably solve the issue where folks create multiple accounts for different interests or circles.
> Follow hashtags, not people
>
> If a person who's writing regularly about ‘open source’ decided to start a farm and consequently began posting mostly about ‘agriculture’, I'd be far less interested in their feed as a whole. However, if that same person was still writing occasionally about open source, now with an added ecology-informed perspective, I'd be more excited than ever to keep up with that particular segment of their writings!
I sincerely hope the vast majority of “GenAI enhancements” will go the way of the 3D glasses which the movie theaters unsuccessfully tried to foist onto our noggins as the upsell no one had asked for.
Remember those things? They were kind-of-okay for Avatar, and then nothing else ever again. Today there can be no doubt that the novelty was ultimately not worth its weight in plastic pollution.
Took nearly a decade for corporations to largely give up on that forced fad, so, hang in there! 💪
@fanden correct. What I’m hoping for is a decade of lackluster adoption, leading to continuous divestment in AI until it’s unilaterally viewed as yet another incremental technology, as opposed to a revolutionary one.
Is there a platform for exchanging long-form text with short-term data deletion features baked-in? Something like Signal or Whatsapp but with a UX optimized for longer-form text discussions (eg, maybe even assuming IRL keyboard, desktop-client-first.)
(Yes, I realize that no such system is perfect, because bad actors can always screenshot or copy-paste; but I want to raise the bar for retention and build in a default assumption that group members don’t keep archives.)
@luis_in_brief not that I’m aware of, but it could definitely be built as an alternative interface on top of either Matrix or Signal, yeah. Only the former if you need to support groups/communities bigger than a few hundred people, although at that scale disappearing messages become less meaningful.
AI "artists" and deviant art in particular can just get in the fucking bin, oh my god. How are you supposed to find and hire artists any more? Is there a gallery site that bans gen AI submissions?
I think that when people don't like social media "algorithms", the most common thread is not wanting "automated content recommendations" from outside their network. eg, "tiktok for microblogging".
it has less to do with "one algo vs many", or even "open source vs black box", or really even "engagement maximizing vs good content"
@bnewbold yeah I like that. Though as long as the algorithms are opt-in and composable, it’s all good really. I just don’t want any surprises in the ordering of my feed, covertly introduced by obfuscated algorithms.
Even a fairly magical sorting mechanism is fine as long as I get to explicitly flip the switch and mindfully observe its impact.
Everything works differently when the user is transparently included in the entire loop. I could happily A/B-day test my enjoyment of different configs.
Anyone who says "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product" has been suckered in by Big Tech, whose cargo-cult version of markets and the discipline they impose on companies.
--
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
@pluralistic I still think it’s a useful truism. Why do you think your new favorite search engine, Kagi, works so well? Aligned incentives play a big part there.
Bigness and consequent monopolization being the larger overarching cause of enshittification doesn’t preclude paid products from being fundamentally more user-aligned than ads-driven ones with obfuscated profit incentives.
You’re not NOT the product if you pay for it either, but it’s a more transparent exchange, which matters.
I had an interesting idea for PubKit, I do want to open source the code but I'd also like to get some funding/donations while keeping the service free.
The idea is to set a goal, say $15,000 of donations to reach before the source code is published, basically incentivizing the release by a set monetary goal.
@dansup go for it! You have every right to solicit fair compensation for your hard work.
Self-imposed poverty is in no way a part of the open source ethos. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to understand that the open source code we all love and appreciate will only keep coming as long as the people writing it are housed, fed and healthy.