again a great chance to introduce many new people to the #fediverse.
#Vero is getting hudge attention over #twitter. It's a new social network, co-founded by a capitalist that left thousands of their workers unpaid in a dessert camp, and even stoped food, electricity...suply.
We can:
- make that visable
- highlight the anti-capitalist values of the fediverse
- expand on the beauty of federation and free software
...
-> tweet by using #Vero
-> rt to give tweets higher ranking
-> spread it
@bob ...it's even all over the news.
@bob @paulfree14 Besides the fact that people are so stupid to believe the next hype (fortunately this hype is almost over), I read bullshit stories about Mastodon and Diaspora being a hype, and being dead.
Most tech writers are not real journalists, they are just following fashion trends.
@jeroenpraat 😛 @bob @paulfree14 Those trends do drive clicks though, in an increasingly corporate online/journalism environment you can't blame the people for doing what they need to, the real question is what does federated hype look like😛
@paulfree14 The fediverse's concept is not anti-capitalist, or political in nature. That's birsite-like bubble talk and not helpful to convert many more people, including capitalists, to decentralized infrastructure.
@raucao
of course it's political in nature.
For example it's about creating a federated structure instead of a centralized.
It is also in a way anti-capitalism as the way it's designed can have multible different autonom methods to sustain itself.
The large extend is done through sharing resources and by that a reflection of it's anti-capitalist nature. (which does not mean it couldn't be used for that)
@paulfree14 Anti-capitalism is not designed, and capitalism without statism is decentralized by design.
@paulfree14 It still doesn't mean that the fediverse is political in nature same, same as the Web, or the Internet itself is not.
@paulfree14 All 3 are decentralized if we want it, and centralized if we don't take care.
@raucao
Let's say there is a king. But I and others don't want to be ruled by the king.
So we create a party that is pro federated desicion making power.
Would you say that's not political?
@paulfree14 Yes, but a party is centralized. Decentralization is inherently apolitical, because it rejects both kings and parties.
>Decentralization is inherently apolitical, because it rejects both kings and parties
Rejecting kings and parties is apolitical?
how does this make sense?
@paulfree14 It's only political in the sense that it rejects politics and politicians to rule other human beings. Decentralized governance is not political by design, only if a community applies a governance model that is. See e.g. Bitcoin governance. Arguably the currently largest-in-value decentralized network/community, and yet there is no political governance at all.
@paulfree14 Similarly, there is no political governance to control which Mastodon node connects to which other OStatus/ActivityPub node, or what their rules are within their community. The community itself can choose whatever model they want on every instance.
@paulfree14 In my mind, that is the very benefit of decentralization, and in this case federation. That a community is free to choose their own politics, or none at all.
@raucao
(been away for some time and remember me having left this duscussion abondant)
one point of disagrement was weather the fediverse is political not.
you:
'That a community is free to choose their own politcs...'
The freedom of choise is something very political. It's like voting but with being able to decide how and on what to vote.
@raucao
>...it is 'only' political...
Means it is political. That was one of my point that you rejected.
...but in the next sentence you reject it again. 0_o :-(
I don't enjoy this style of rethoric to proof your own point.
@paulfree14 I explained at length why governance in decentralized systems is not political. I subscribe to the idea of building a better system and pulling people towards yours, instead of actively fighting an existing one. Hence, I can do entirely without politics when building decentralized infra. Your opinion might differ, and I respect that. But it doesn't make federation anti-capitalist, as I originally pointed out.
heh. Rejecting kings and parties is a political position.
Federation is also a particular political mode, although it's not necessarily anti-capitalist. You could in theory have a capitalist federation, although capitalism tends to work most "efficiently" for the boss when it's centralized.
The anti-capitalist strand of the fediverse comes from it being to some extent used by anarchists during the wilderness years, and also then later the Qvitter user interface. But of course it was never true that the fediverse was entirely anti-capitalist.
Total utter BS.
Such a shit ancap piece of aynrandian turd ideology.
Reality check: consolidation of mammoth corporations whose ultimate goal is to achieve monopoly. And I'm not a statist, but even the great statists have recognised that some monopolies had to be split to avoid concentration of power in fewer hands against the public interest.
Total utter BS, BS, BS, BS.
@h @paulfree14 I'd advise to check your ideological tunnel vision, if you burst out in utter disgust at a simple fact, instead of just refuting it. Your toot lterally looks like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=child+shouting+holding+ears&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Monopolies are only possible within a state that grants monopoly rights, such as patents, copyright, exclusive licenses.
@paulfree14 @h And by the way, that's completely missing the original point, that the concept of decentralized infra is not anti-capitalist in nature.
@paulfree14 When they have a position on decentralisation affecting the model of economic distribution, that's not political by definition.
When you have a position, then you have an agenda, ulterior motives, and you're injecting your ideology in the otherwise pure, totally objective world as *they* see it. (but that's not politics, that's objectivity!)
Guys like raucao are so transparent it's laughable. Rubbish. Waste of time.
@h
'neutral pure' capitalism :)
...I keep forgetting that ppl do believe it's a neutral system.
@raucao Monopolies have historically been possible by force of violence before capitalism even existed, wherever there were resources and wealth to control around the world, not always on behalf of the state, at a time when the state didn't yet have a monopoly on violence.
But don't worry, it's not personal, my contempt is not exclusively reserved for utterly disgusting ancaps. There's worse things in the world. For example, there's ancaps who act as online evangelists for their religion.
@h Oh, you mean like someone trying to associate decentralized infra with their political ideology? 🙄
@raucao Apologies. It's totally my fault that militant wilful ignorance really gets to me, and i should keep that under check.
@h You can keep insulting me and calling me names. You still haven't even touched on my *original point*. I suggest we end this conversation, if all you intend to do is keep bullying me.
@strypey By the way, I find it both funny and sad, how simply arguing *any* points touching capitalism automatically makes you either a hardcore capitalist or anti-capitalist in the eyes of ideologically stubborn people. Complete with all the love or hate you get for being on the "correct" side or not. Whichever that might be, depending on who's judging. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@strypey I'm pro free markets and voluntary exchange on the macro level. And I want every community or group of people to be able to decide on their own what system they choose. I guess that makes me a voluntaryist.
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
@raucao
capitalism without statism...hmm I don't think that's even possible. (but that's a bit off topic)
Capitalism is a definition of a system. If you'd like to change its fundamentals it isn't capitalism anymore and by that it's nature needs to be static. The fediverse has adopted oposing fundamentals to #capitalism:
capitalism: private ownership
fediverse: commons
capitalism: for profit
fediverse: commons
capitalism: competition
fediverse: colaboration/commons
1. Instances can be privately owned, and MOST of them actually are.
2. Capitalism does not mean everything has to yield profit. And capital is not just money or physical capital. You can both invest as well as earn immaterial capital as well.
3. Capitalism has seen more collaboration between people than any communist society ever has. It is in fact facilitating and incentivizing both collaboration and competetion.
@raucao @paulfree14
1. i wouldn't call instances "privately owned" -- they're not silos. they're more like a town square. you can move to any node in the network and are not locked in.
2. capitalist ventures that are not profitable will stop operating. without profit, there is no motivation under capitalism.
3. this is a political statement that has nothing to do with federation, nor is it true; cooperatives > firms
@paulfree14 @raucao expansion of point 3: it is impossible to incentivize BOTH collaboration and competition. those two goals are diametrically opposed to each other.
@raucao @paulfree14 why would a capitalist use decentralized infrastructure? that's not monetizable
@paulfree14 Do you have links to the news reports about him?
@paulfree14 ah yes, the takeaway from Vero is somehow capitalism! this take makes sense and is valid and deserves to be shared
