Anomander

Putting the blame on Microsoft or IWF is meaningfully missing the point.

People were responsible for moderating what showed up on their forums or servers for years prior to these tools' existence, people have been doing the same since those tools existed. Neither the tool nor it's absence are responsible for child porn getting posted to Fediverse instances. If those shards won't take action against CSAM materials now - what good will the tool do? We can't run it here and have the tool go delete content from someone elses' box.

While those tools would make some enforcement significantly easier, the fact that enforcement isn't meaningfully occurring on all instances isn't something we can point at Microsoft and claim is their fault somehow.

I think there were a lot of players up and down the ranks waiting to see which way the wind blew before casting for any given side.

With so many concerns that the coup had backing from either Putin or other power blocs, a whole lot of side players would have wanted to back a winning pony and were waiting on early outcomes. Equally, with Putin not providing decisive action, I'm sure that invited meaningful concerns that this was some sort of double-dealing or the beginning of a Putin-backed purge.

Very much so.

If this coin's math and mechanics actually work in transferring wealth from rich to poor ... it'll be swamped in poor people wanting their cut, and rich people will want nothing to do with a shitcoin that's explicitly going to take their money and give it to other people.

Depends where you are; but in the right areas it definitely is. Certainly if you'd stand out as a tourist, a large part of the country isn't really safe to head into alone.

In tourist areas or the nicer parts of Manila, it's quite reasonable.

My comment was clearly not written to give you advice for your specific child and her suite of issues.

I'm speaking a lot more generally and while I'm leaving room for parents like you to make your choices, I'm also still being direct that I think it's not a good universal rule. Even if that is an outcome someone chooses, it's no less true that engaging with the whole choice is necessary to do a good job of making it. Internet=bad is an incredibly simplistic old-person take at this stage in society, and some parents even to current generations can misunderstand or underestimate the significant role that the internet can play in their kids' lives. No solution fits across all kids, that's part of the challenge - but understanding the role that the internet plays in modern kids' social world and peer networks is important to making decisions about their access to it with complete information and goal-oriented integrity.

The matched point in that comment you may have missed is that I'm not modelling my remarks around a binary of "unrestricted internet" vs "no internet." If anything, I think I was clearly saying that absolute 'solutions' get progressively worse the wider they cast their net - as more and more unintended consequences are included in that broad-reaching choice.

Separately, you also shouldn't expect that what you felt you needed to do in order to support your child in a relatively unusual situation - will also be a good foundation for broad-case parenting practices. What is good for one child is not good for all children - and the more unusual the child or their needs, the less applicable that solution would be to "average" kids. There are other kids in similar-looking situations where your solution would exacerbate the problem instead of reduce it - now not only are they depressed and bullied, but also isolated from their friends. The vast majority of kids aren't in situations particularly similar to yours and using your solution in their cases risks putting them into worse places than they started, or putting a target on them where none existed prior. Sever the child from the internet isn't something you necessarily should be treating as universally good for all parents and all kids with zero possible downsides.

There are always downsides. Especially in parenting, everything is a trade-off and nothing is clear-cut. If you can't see what's being traded off - in effectively anything - that's a good cue to start hunting for blind spots. Especially when making rules for kids like cutting off parts of their world. As you said, being a parent requires making tough choices, and that requires engaging with the whole cost/benefit of the choice.

There's nothing challenging or tough about firmly believing you are wholly, completely, and absolutely Correct in whatever option you pick. It's easy to choose something and insist that it's 100% totally and absolutely correct with zero room for discussion. That approach actively shuts down all the actually hard parts of making the choice. But that is a choice with it's own downsides. It makes it hard to relate to those kids as they age enough to challenge you, or start leaving home, and it doesn't model behavior that I - personally - think is producing functional adults down the road. At the very least, the kind of person who is never wrong is not the kind of person I want to raise.

So I think that commenting more specifically on what you've said here - it rings some bells and tints some flags. You're proudly teaching your kids critical thinking, yet also say you cannot see any downsides to cutting off social media completely. You're absolutely blase about deeming all kids who use social media "toxic" and "bad friends" with "struggles" as if it's completely normal, healthy, and definitely non-toxic for an adult to be passing those kind of judgements about children on such a trivial basis, and to model that for their own kids. You talk about one child's needs to justify the choice, but have more than that one affected by it. You reacted as if this is already a hot-button issue to you - and responded to remarks clearly speaking generally and not at all targeting to you as if it was a personal attack, returning fire with a bunch of spicy jibes about me as a person and as a parent. If this is how you experience and respond to an opinion you disagree with on the internet, I can certainly imagine how you deal with faintest hints of dispute from your own children. Of course they're telling you what you want to hear.

The calls are coming from inside the house, friend.

I think maybe some of that is on me; I've been using "in power" somewhat colloquially and to me there's a gap between 'gaining power' in a soft sense referring to achieving a station that possesses power - and complete seizure of power. The latter is always the goal of the former, but the former is generally a necessary intermediary step.

It seems to me that the current crop of neo-fascist (or fascist-adjacent as you call them) leaders have remained in power for a very long time, even with more or less fair elections. Erdogan in Turkey, Netenyahu in Israel, and Orban in Hungary come to mine.

Those three for sure have held power quite a while - just that they've held power long enough I don't really consider them representative of modern neo-fascism so much as inspirations for it. In the sense I was thinking of when I wrote the above, I was thinking more of the factions and leaders that exist within states that are not clearly semi- or pseudo-fascist in their structure. The ways that Erdogan, Netenyahu, and Orban maintain their power are not yet in place in those other states, but implementing some forms of them are goals within those movements.

The neo-fascists' I was talking about have to win elections and hold legitimate power within the current structure of the state before they can alter that structure enough to fix elections or bypass them. And in getting that initial foot in door, creating the opportunity to hijack the state, benefits strongly from using populist rhetoric - as genuinely pro-fascist voters are relatively rare, those factions and leaders need to use other causes to win over voters who wouldn't support their "real" goals directly.

I think that this is like wrapping a kid in bubble-wrap, though. And like, not in that "over-coddling" metaphorical sense, but much more literal - sure, the kid can't get scrapes if they fall off their bike, but the other kids are going to make fun of the kid wearing bubble wrap.

You don't necessarily want to give them an unrestricted mainline to the worst of the internet, but you don't want to overcorrect so hard that you're causing other problems.

As toxic as it is, as much as there's space for harms and bullying, or that the internet holds porn and violent content ... the internet and social media spaces are where a huge portion of kids social lives live, and barring them from participating in that will do one of two things - teach them to get sneaky in order to bypass the restriction, or force them into an 'outsider' role in their peer group. In the first, it's a lost cause and all you're doing is making it inconvenient without addressing the harms - and ensuring they can't talk to you about what comes from that space. In the latter, there are strong social and self-esteem costs associated with excluding your child from having a social life with other children - is it "better" for the parent to do the harm instead of the other children? Is it better for your relationship with that child, long-term, their trust in you, or your ability to support them?

The kid restricted to "dumb phone only, no internet, no apps" is the current generations' equivalent of that one kid that wasn't allowed to go to the park, or the mall, or hang out on the street - whatever any given past generation used as their youthful Third Place, where they could socialize and hang out separate from school and without adults actively supervising them. And it's never been great for the kid whose parents won't let them participate in the common social life that their peers have.

It's far more fruitful to give them age-appropriate education related to their use of and relationship with the internet and provide a controlled and supported introduction than it is to simply bar their access for several years. You're either stunting their social development in order to avoid harms to their social development (?!?!) or you're simply winding the proverbial rubber band tighter and tighter against an inevitable rebellion - at which point they're jumping in headlong without ever developing any sort of media literacy or social media savvy and never had a chance to build coping and resilience for whatever rabbit holes they're likely to fall into .

Yeah. Rather a decent number of communities have actually moved to Discord, or are trying to, including a decent sampling of larger communities like MFA.

There's been some kind of wonky takes in Fediverse about some of those moves that seem to reject the validity of migrations that aren't coming to our spaces. Mods will post "going to Discord, fuck this place" and they're like "it's temporary, Discord isn't a forum".

Absolutely, I’m gobsmacked nobody seems to read history.

Although, a lot of these nowadays fascist leaders are being supported by very large swathes of their own populations, as much as 48%, which is the truly shocking thing.

Reading history ... that tends to be how it works. Fascism is good at getting popular support for it's ideas, without overtly being fascism to the people who support it. Fascism's gateway drug is populism, and populism works best when the 'common' population is under strain too complex to address as a single issue.

The worlds ongoing climate crises, economic issues, and political instability within developing economies are all placing unusual and complicated strains on the common populations of developed nations - which in turn opens the door for populist rhetoric and leaders to thrive and gain a foothold on the political discourses in their nations. The biggest single pro/con of populist rhetoric is that it is at its strongest as challenger or as opposition - much like armchair quarterbacking, it's very easy to criticize what has been done, and even easier to sound like you could do it better, but very hard to deliver on promises from the drivers' seat. As a result, populism is good for getting elected, but is not good for staying there - or getting re-elected later.

So given that many populist talking points in current economies are fascist-adjacent, pivoting towards fascism makes for an easy and natural segue in the event that they gain power or hold sufficient security of position and supporter base that populism alone cannot serve to maintain.

Sure; it's just so good at being a chat app that it makes a terrible forum.

My understanding is that it can be done and with a whole host of third party tools and bots and a little legion of mods - but that's a ton of work both setup and ongoing, just to reshape Discord into the sort of format that Reddit or Kbin/Lemmy offer pretty much right out the box.

The issue there is that it's kind of like saying "the only way to fix society is if everyone followed the law" - it places all assessments of success behind a nearly impossible standard. It also places all responsibility for that success solely onto mods putting their own interests ahead of their communities and/or the interest that brought them to volunteer as mods.

I participated in the protest, I'm here because of them, I facilitated protest actions within 'my' communities that wanted to protest - but I don't think there was a world where mods alone could bring the site to its knees and force Reddit to backpedal. If anything - I think that any hope of dramatic action causing change died on the spot the moment the protest became "about mods" and users experienced the protest as something mods were doing to communities in order to reach Reddit.

So many mods acted unilaterally to shutter communities and the impact of that approach cultivated reddit's existing anti-mod sentiments to fuel opposition to the protests and the cause. The vast bulk of people I saw trolling in protest subs, or arguing against protest in my own subs, were users who already had a history of disliking "reddit mods" as a significant theme in their account history.

But to average users, their shit and their communities and the things they like about reddit were being "taken away" by mods in a dispute between mods and Reddit. The hijack of messaging around the API to be about modding and about how much harder it'd be and how the API changes would affect mods - meant that users were also indirectly being told this was an issue that didn't affect them if they didn't use the apps affected.

The only dramatic impact that would have swayed Reddit Inc and won the matter was a fairly unanimous buy-in from the average user, a clear unified front, and a dramatic drop in user engagement. As long as they have the data showing that people are showing up and are using the site and are interested in using the site, they can deal with the interruptions to major communities and pull more compliant volunteers from the users that remain.

My favorite absolute boss take from him was reassuring an author that only had two people show up to a signing -

Chelsea Banning, Author : Only 2 people came to my author signing yesterday, so I was pretty bummed about it. Especially as 37 people responded "going" to the event. Kind of upset, honestly, and a little embarrassed.

Neil Gaiman : Terry Pratchett and I did a signing in Manhattan for Good Omens that nobody came to at all. So you are two up on us.

Link here, which was in reply to this tweet - but because twitter has apparently busted context in links from offsite, it's easier to just copy the tweets wholesale here.