No, and it couldn't be, which the point that you seem to be circling. Markets aren't self-governing--they don't set the rules that they abide by (including which externalities are priced in and which aren't)--that's a function of government.
> Then the negative externalities should be properly priced in.
is what I was replying to, saying the market isn't going to naturally do this because capital doesn't actually care about negative externalities until forced to.
Right, I'm pointing out that it's a nonsense comment. "The negative externalities should be properly priced in" implies government intervention, and indeed the market cannot do it. At best you're violently agreeing with everyone in the thread.
> whereas before you could run away to somewhere new, a new town, a new country, a new frontier now you can't escape it.
I genuinely think about this a whole lot. It's wild to think about this being an actual thing...
> What can we do to fight it?
Organizing and labor unions. The latter isn't the most popular thing around here but it's really the last thing we have. We broke out the guild system and forced fundamental changes in the past and it can be done again, but do we have the will to do so?
> It's a strange combination between modesty and strategically bending rules. I kind of adore that.
It's very earnestly human. Being rigid is fine and all but it also kind of sucks a hell of a lot. So it turns into a "how can I make this suck a little less without breaking what I believe in too much?" which is something I think we all struggle with but it's really laid bare here with the contrast between their lifestyle and ours.
Honestly it could also be it's just hard to fathom the breadth and scale. Easier to imagine someone opening your mail or tapping your phone or otherwise physically interacting with things you own over the government intercepting a request to post a picture to facebook, for instance.
I think a fair number of people intuitively understand just how massive the internet is and it's hard to conceptualize someone or something sifting through the sand to find your few little grains.
It's also literally in the Intercept article with a link to the story lol:
> According to Recode, the suspicious tweets in fact came at the behest of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who had recently conveyed disappointment to Amazon officials that the company was not pushing back against criticisms that he considered misleading.
Cellular Automata are so cool. I did a project for a distributed computing course on them and it was real fun throwing different rules in and seeing what emerged.
A more significant development, I think, would be if online services let you keep your various accounts permanently in synch. That way you could write a post on one platform and know that your followers on another platform would be able to see it.
Sadly that still wouldn't fix the problem that you have to visit each platform to see responses from users that don't similarly syndicate their own posts. That might lessen those platform's concerns about implementing this automatic synching feature, though, and take them a step closer to being properly federated.
A good point he had is that this kind of thing would, seemingly counter-intuitively (but it makes sense) strengthen the incumbents and stifle both innovation and competition.
Innovation -> Interoperability has a (maintenance) cost and would probably quickly devolve to "lowest common denominator functionality" while raising yet another barrier to entry for new companies
Competition -> Incumbents could pretty much just exploit new companies as "market research" and gobble up all their features and data if they deem the experiment successful, at no cost
I'm not sure how strong those arguments are, actually.
* Interoperability is feature just like any other, and the difficulty of implementing/maintaining it must be a fraction of the difficulty of competing with the network effects of entrenched online services. Indeed, I would hope that interoperability would pay for itself, in terms of effort, because of the number of users that can migrate to the new service, as well as being a selling point in itself (since people would be reluctant to sign up to yet another incompatible silo).
* I think incumbents don't need to rely on interoperability to do market research and copy features of competitors. It's true that Facebook would be able to see private posts on Mastodon instances that it federated with, but I don't know what useful data Facebook could gain from that which it couldn't gain from A/B testing its own huge user base. If anything, I would expect Mastodon instances to gain more from this exchange, because they are gaining access to the bigger pool of data.
Isn't Facebook legally obligated by GDPR (for example) to delete a user's data on request? Noncompliance is risky; it only takes one disgruntled employee to cause you a lot of pain.
There is no way you can actually delete anything in the cloud, because once it is in the cloud, it is not under your control anymore.
The ability to "delete" something is only apparent. You can just tell the customer you have erased her data, but preserve it anyway, not to mention other parties like secret services or competitors, that could be interested on your data too.
If you have valuable data, people(like the Chinese or competitors) will offer your workers millions of dollars(or just threaten them or you like 3 letter agencies) for access to this data.
> Climate models show that we only have about 10-15 more years before complete climate collapse.
and here i am, waking up every day putting on my stupid pants and my stupid hoodie and meandering to my stupid laptop to make stupid little websites.
like normally i'm just going with the flow with this knowledge that the future is gonna suck but somedays like today it hits harder than it usually does when i see it written out this way
Don't fret. 'Scientists' (politicians that pretend to be scientists?) have been making this 'climate emergency' claim for generations now. It's all click-bait fearmongering.
