4 ms·

I didn't mean that you “can't succeed” or “can't win”. You can, but the process itself silently changes, and you are now playing by others' rules instead of you

I didn't mean that you “can't succeed” or “can't win”. You can, but the process itself silently changes, and you are now playing by others' rules instead of your own, and get concerned with goals that are different from the original. The idea that you need to “succeed” or “win” itself is something others told you. Power does not always come with fear, it can be unnoticeable or hidden inside candy wrapping. An existing person does not exist to corporate/government structures without official papers proving it. In the same manner, users can't access many modern services without social network account or mobile phone number (which is a qualified long term tracking id which allows these services to find their place in existing data trading schemes). Smartphones essentially belong to platform owners which merely allow consumers, hardware, and application makers to use their services. The problem is not whether “A is good” or “B is bad”, the problem is giving those abilities to decide to some entity, which people do voluntary. The idea is that you shouldn't play with a swindler at all if you understand that it's a swindle, even if inertia or goading makes it the easier choice.

keepamovin 3y ago
Not necessarily. Part of playing is you can play by the rules you want to play. I consider that part of winning. Or, if you want to step back and be more expansive: discard the outcome; it's part of playing well. > The idea that you need to “succeed” or “win” itself is something others told you. Not for me. I don't do things because others told me. I do them because I choose. Whatever I choose-winning, succeeding or whatever--it's a self-directed expression of me. I'm self-directed. I get if it's different for you. It certainly can be like that. It can be used to manipulate. Indeed power can be coercive and deceptive. It can be the frame, that looks desirous, or acceptable, but is actually disempowering for those who may choose to participate. Such as "FS" ideology: seems noble, but can be misused. Such as to convince creators that it's noble that they shouldn't charge, in order to keep software cost-free. I agree with you about the hidden power of platforms, institutions and systems. It's important for persons to be aware of these powers if they are to navigate them. I understand the integrity of not playing with the "swindler", in this case the "signature vendor". However, that choice may become idealistic when practically your customers are prevented from having an easy install process because you are too ethical to "play" with, or pay, the "swindler". Whether something is a swindle can depend on some point of view. The utility of creator verification is undeniable and is of benefit to users of the platform, system, institution. However, the precise value of that utility and benefit is harder to pin down, unlikely to be what the market currently charges and most probably exaggerated. In short, looked at from one way, a costly convenience is a swindle, but from a more practical viewpoint, it's merely a cost of doing business. And in many ways, you can choose what you care about. Pick your battles. Stand at the gate and fight the gatekeeper because of the high cover charge? Or get in side and fight the market? Choice is yours. Keep in mind that self-imposed exile of such puritanism could be used as an excuse to avoid the possible failure of real competition. It may be you think you are free, but in fact perhaps you're just afraid to fail. So, instead, you pick a fight with the doorman, so you never have to get inside and really get tested. In conclusion, a refusal to be intimate with any swindles at all could be seen as a form of puritanism, the cost of which may be a kind of "modern exile". And I don't think it's easy to get deliveries of cucumbers to your off-grid shack in the woods! You could grow your own tho, but you'd still kind of be a modern exile, tho! Hahaha :)

keepamovin 3y ago

Not necessarily. Part of playing is you can play by the rules you want to play. I consider that part of winning. Or, if you want to step back and be more expansive: discard the outcome; it's part of playing well. > The idea that you need to “succeed” or “win” itself is something others told you. Not for me. I don't do things because others told me. I do them because I choose. Whatever I choose-winning, succeeding or whatever--it's a self-directed expression of me. I'm self-directed. I get if it's different for you. It certainly can be like that. It can be used to manipulate. Indeed power can be coercive and deceptive. It can be the frame, that looks desirous, or acceptable, but is actually disempowering for those who may choose to participate. Such as "FS" ideology: seems noble, but can be misused. Such as to convince creators that it's noble that they shouldn't charge, in order to keep software cost-free. I agree with you about the hidden power of platforms, institutions and systems. It's important for persons to be aware of these powers if they are to navigate them. I understand the integrity of not playing with the "swindler", in this case the "signature vendor". However, that choice may become idealistic when practically your customers are prevented from having an easy install process because you are too ethical to "play" with, or pay, the "swindler". Whether something is a swindle can depend on some point of view. The utility of creator verification is undeniable and is of benefit to users of the platform, system, institution. However, the precise value of that utility and benefit is harder to pin down, unlikely to be what the market currently charges and most probably exaggerated. In short, looked at from one way, a costly convenience is a swindle, but from a more practical viewpoint, it's merely a cost of doing business. And in many ways, you can choose what you care about. Pick your battles. Stand at the gate and fight the gatekeeper because of the high cover charge? Or get in side and fight the market? Choice is yours. Keep in mind that self-imposed exile of such puritanism could be used as an excuse to avoid the possible failure of real competition. It may be you think you are free, but in fact perhaps you're just afraid to fail. So, instead, you pick a fight with the doorman, so you never have to get inside and really get tested. In conclusion, a refusal to be intimate with any swindles at all could be seen as a form of puritanism, the cost of which may be a kind of "modern exile". And I don't think it's easy to get deliveries of cucumbers to your off-grid shack in the woods! You could grow your own tho, but you'd still kind of be a modern exile, tho! Hahaha :)