4 ms·
No value--people want content that is focused, accurate, curated, reliable, relevant, high quality, etc. Also no freedom, with all your content restrictions.
by jibal 1y ago
No value--people want content that is focused, accurate, curated, reliable, relevant, high quality, etc.
Also no freedom, with all your content restrictions.
- petralithic 1y agoTo the first point, could there not be an algorithm that nevertheless still works without followers, likes or ads? TikTok seems kind of similar, at least when it initially started. It seems its core algorithm doesn't need likes, it can detect whether you engage with a video via other metrics like time spent watching the video. I suppose you'd want to allow people to self select based on topics, and then, well, you essentially get Reddit.
- atoav 1y agoAh the good old "freedom to" that totally forgets that freedom also should contain a "freedom of". Free like in a chaotic war zone, where you can commit any kind of horrible attrocity, but if you just want to have a nice time, that isn't an option, because everybody behaves like an idiot. No thanks. Freedom in reality isn't just a thing that you increase by reducing the rules. There comes a point where less rules result in less freedom. So it is always a balancing act between your freedom to do X and others freedom to not have to be subjected to X. Example: Giving up the freedom being able to murder random people is a little price to pay, if it means reducing the risk to be murdered yourself – especially since decent people wouldn't have the actionable urge to murder each other anyways. If you're a murderer however that may reduce your freedom in ways you dislike. But then, maybe, your freedom shouldn't matter as much. Maybe I would care more about that specific idea of active freedom if I routinely wittnessed a real repression of any idea that isn't just the mean bullshit of egocentrics who have lost all touch with humanity and just want to see the world burn.
- jibal 1y agoI didn't say that I wanted a "freedom to" site, I'm just saying that the site is mischaracterized.
- atoav 1y agoAnd I saw a ton of racist, genozidal, sexualized and otherwise unhinged content that the worst people would think call "freedom". So again, tell me what you're unfree to write there?
- jibal 1y agoI already said. And again, I'm not seeking that sort of freedom ... the one sort of freedom the site offers is freedom from moral consequence.
- sebastiennight 1y agoIt's not, sadly, because technological choices are ethical choices. Your site uses technologies that make it trivial for large entities (like Google) to know that person X living in Atlanta just posted a certain racially-charged diatribe. This might come back to bite them in the rear-end in the future, in ways that they don't suspect today, because this data is never getting deleted and might be available to untold numbers of private and state actors in the future.
- rododecba 1y agoi cant make a site with 100% freedom, beacuse of obvious reasons, that would be like utopic i think
- jibal 1y agoThen don't call it that. There's nothing about your site that grants me the sort of freedoms I want, including the freedom to locate useful content.
- rododecba 1y agoi think that maybe you are looking in mi site something thats already in others
- jibal 1y agoP.S. I'm not looking for anything in your site, I'm just saying that it's not what you're presenting it as.
- buynlarge 1y agoNah, disagree. I feel more free on this site than all the others so I back the name.
- mindcrime 1y agopeople want content that is focused, accurate, curated, reliable, relevant, high quality, etc. That is trivially disproven by observing that massive numbers of people use Twitter, Facebook, etc.
- jibal 1y agoIt's a fact so it can't be disproven. Your response is a fallacy of denial of the antecedent.
- jibal 1y agoP.S. > You made a wild generalization (with the assumed meaning that ALL people want X) Assumed by whom? Only by your obviously false assumption did I make a wild generalization. i.e., the charge is a lie.
- sebastiennight 1y agoAdding "it's a fact" to claims does not make them impossible to disprove. You made a wild generalization (with the assumed meaning that ALL people want X) and the GP shared examples of people consuming "not X". You can also see, on this same thread, people explicitly building experiments of uncurated content, which means they want it so much that they are willing to spend much effort building it themselves. What would it take for you to consider that listing what you want does not necessarily imply a "fact" that all people want the same?
- incone123 1y agoYou can follow accounts which is a form of curation. I dropped all social media except this one because it was a time-sink but I did used to find following resulted in a useful feed on Instagram.