this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
69 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8151 readers
2 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i dunno. the internet was good for a little while because only a tiny fraction of people were on it and those people deliberately chose to be on it, which also made them much more likely to search out things and form communities.
but now that everybody is always on the internet and it's no longer a place people specifically search out, it has become like any other medium: the vast majority of people just want to be served stuff, they want radio without the talking (and maybe a bit more personalized), tv without the ads (and slightly more convenience), the newspaper without paying for it. The "the whole world at your fingertips" thing was never something the average person has ever had any interest in.
Add onto that the obvious fact that the more savy an internet user is, the less likely he is to get swindled (and seemingly the only viable business model on the internet is scamming your userbase) and its obvious that the part of the internet that is actually kinda good is going to shrink by every passing year.
I disagree. The Internet was mostly good in the early days, not because of the people using it, but because corporations hadn't yet figured out how profitable it would become. Everything was free, the standards/protocols all open, if someone made a thing for the Internet it was because they thought it would be useful, not because they thought it would make them a lot of money.
Look at Wikipedia, one of the last remnants of the early Internet. It's a mostly good tool because it hasn't been overrun by profit motive.
Profit motives are destroying the Internet. Because profit is divorced from the actual value a thing provides. Enshitification works because a worse technology results in higher profits.
I'd rather not.
Wikipedia certainly isn't perfect, liberalism is the primary global ideology so it should come as no surprise that most of the contributors are liberals and therefore liberalism is present throughout.
But open access to knowledge is a good thing. I much prefer liberal wiki which is free to anyone with an Internet connection than buying collections of liberal encyclopedias and then having to periodically rebuy them (and they were not cheap!) for updated information.
When you have a system that funnels power to the few they will wield that power to edit Wikipedia. Such a system will then render these open platforms to serve it. Wikipedia is a tool for capital and should be treated accordingly.
Could the same not be said about Hexbear/Lemmy? While there certainly have been cases where people acting directly at the behest of capitol have been caught directly editing Wikipedia, these changes are typically caught and reversed.
These open platforms reflect the values and biases of the people who contribute to them. Leftists contribute to Hexbear. Liberals contribute to Wikipedia (because liberalism is the dominant global ideology). So it may appear that capitol is directly editing the pages, but in reality, capitol is manufacturing consent at a global scale, and that is reflected on Wikipedia because the consumers of that manufactured consent become the producers when they go to edit Wikipedia. When cracks in the neoliberal messaging begin to become evident to the masses, so too does Wikipedia reflect that: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/21/headlines/wikipedia_declares_adl_an_unreliable_source_on_the_israel_palestine_conflict
No, they're not amateur historical records. 5th graders do not look up information about the trail of tears or Tienanmen square here.
This is beyond naive.
And large orgs can "correct the record" and do.
Nope just
A distinction without a difference.
Wow one of their mouthpieces was slightly inconvenienced. Wikipedia allows tons of garbage BBC. Wapo etc.