Wouldn't any platform have the same problem though? A forum would partition the community between those willing to make an account and submit private information and those who aren't. It seems like no matter what platform you choose there will always be those who are willing to participate and those who are not.
Not quite. Discord is a lot more invasive with their info collection than, let's say Github or Matrix servers. Second, the info posted to Github is accessible without account, which is not true of Discord.
Ultimately it's better for the public and users to be informed about this occurring though. If Google wanted to they could salvage it and explain their legal duties and how that applies to these situations. I don't think Google is worried though. They have multiple captive markets and have seen continued growth so it's obviously not affecting the bottom line.
It's a good contrast to Apple where any bit of bad news that makes headlines becomes priority one to fix. Which just creates a privileged class of users and makes the brand look fragile.
I think this might be putting the cart before the horse. It doesn't really hit the multiple ways Discord is used. From friend groups, to organized gaming, to software support services. Moving you and a couple friends is easy. However as the group grows larger it becomes harder to move.
I think a better question right now is "what does Discord consider adult content?" Is it just NSFW stuff or does it include other topics as well? If everyone's account becomes a flagged as a teen account and the content isn't NSFW then what is the reason to leave at that point? You aren't forced to show an ID and face scan to keep using the platform. So most servers may be able to just keep business as usual.
It's FAR more burdensome to assemble some amalgamation of features and content to be a replacement and move the community over. At least at the moment. Seems very reminiscent of the first exodus to Mastodon. Where there was excitement in the beginning but ultimately people went back to Twitter and stopped using Mastodon because only the most hardcore privacy nerds moved.
Pretty much. He said some mean words. The cult of personality around the other maintainer has spun it into something way worse that he someone made other people quit OSS or something. It's hog wash and not backed up by anything.
I guarantee you I can say some mean words that would upset you at some point. If you have to repeatedly deal with it, you'd likely leave the space we share or ask someone to make me leave. Words have power, we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
1. Being called an idiot or told my idea is dumb is not going to upset me. I guess I just have more emotional maturity than some OSS devs.
2. Why would I leave when I can just block you if you are harassing me?
3. Why are you inventing this hypothetical instead of just showing where that occurred?
4. No-one has said words don't have power. But being on the internet you should be able to recognize that you won't be friends with everyone. So you have to develop some basic emotional regulation for silly insults.
Why? What's the point of getting upset over any minor slight? Seems more disrespectful to yourself to waste time thinking about it. Why not laugh at the silly insults from people who don't know you and move on?
> Why would I leave when I can just block you if you are harassing me?
If you were involved with bazzite that was not necessarily an option. Hence why some people just elected to leave the project entirely, which is unfortunate to see because I’m sure some talented, contributing people are no longer making the project better.
Honestly I’m surprised that I need to explain the need for people to treat each other with basic decency and respect. Have you really never faced harassment that you couldn’t get away from without either leaving, their leaving, or external intervention?
Would you have the same laissez-faire attitude if I was harassing your partner or children? Would you simply tell them to not care about “mean words”? Should a coworker just be allowed to endlessly call you slurs at work?
Back to your questions: What hypothetical did I make up? Confused by that question and your first one. Those weren’t my examples (I gave none).
It’s one thing to deal with rude people online. It’s another when it’s when you’re at work, doing a hobby, or contributing your time and energy to an open source project. People shouldn’t be abused in general, however. Yes it is good to have thick skin but it doesn’t change the fact that if somebody behaves like that, they are ultimately in the wrong. I don’t know if he behaved as poorly as the bazzite team is claiming, but I’m not really here to litigate that. I just don’t love the idea of saying “just ignore mean words.” it’s flippant, unproductive, and downplays the power of words.
Getting into one fight and just leaving over it is pretty foolish.
What are you talking about? Of course you should treat everybody well. But that doesn't mean everyone will treat you well. Of course I've been harassed before. But that's not related to this at all. We're talking about Bazzite where someone got called an idiot once.
You're really reaching now. If you were harassing my partner or children this would be an entirely different conversation. Again, that's not relevant at all. You're just reaching for anything to make this emotional plea. Also slurs? Come on now. We're literally talking about someone getting called an "idiot". Not a slur. Stop stretching the truth.
Your hypothetical was "If you have to repeatedly deal with it, you'd likely leave the space we share or ask someone to make me leave".
Nobody was abused here. Good lord. So THAT'S what set you off. So "just ignore mean words" does mean "let everyone call you slurs all day". It's means what it literally says. Mean words. Mean words are "idiot", "stupid", etc. They are silly and childish insults. They are not harmful words. They are not slurs. They are not harassment. Do you understand what I said now? Because I think your invention of scenarios that didn't happen here is extremely unproductive and is derailing the conversation. Instead of using slogans and extremes, ask questions next time. Can really save you and others some effort.
On desktops and servers yeah. Bazzite was a bit of a special case as it was catered to handheld devices. So it did have that going for it. A one stop install that just supported everything on these devices from the start.
I've been thinking we could eliminate a lot of niche specialized distros by replacing them with system configs for Guix System or NixOS. Maybe if you got Ansible involved it could work for Debian and Arch also. Set your default packages, custom kernel, whatever else in there. Everything needing a big brand, name, logo, website, and so on seems a bit excessive at times.
Now it’s your responsibility to explain what any of these words mean to an average user who just wants to play their Steam games. Like it or not, brands have power. It’s been hard enough to convince people already willing to try Linux gaming to use one of the dedicated gaming distros, instead of waiting for when SteamOS is going to support their hardware.
Bazzite is sortof in that category, though. Fedora atomic is a podman container image, and Bazzite is using that as FROM in their Containerfile. It's niche and specialized only to the extent that they're providing gaming specific setup (like Nvidia drivers). It's mostly a Fedora system.
It's bad enough that Discord seems to be vulnerable to attack. But now they want to hold on face scans and ID's that directly tie to their accounts? It's already not smart, but especially dangerous for public figures like streamers and vtubers. Not only can it dox their appearance (if they are hiding it) but also give the insane stalkers direct ways to harass them or assault them at home.
However I think Discord is far too embedded for communities. Whether that be social or development. So I don't think we'll see a big exodus. Having teen mode be the default will just mean that NSFW flags on channels or content will be a death sentence for that board or community. Similar to how Reddits big push to shove NSFW into a corner has gone. There are obvious examples like adult content that are NSFW intentionally. But things like art or cosplay can easily be twisted as NSFW and it just shuts down the reach of these kinds of artists.
Unfortunately most people are dug in now and it takes absolute extreme actions to get people to move. The fact that X is still around should be clear evidence of that. It's draining over time but that kind of universal community has not be replicated. Just a couple different echo chambers.
The data cited are international organizations so they are generally pretty trustworthy. However looking at the data tells a very different story from what this professor is claiming. They are averaging all countries regardless of context. Including countries at war, countries who have inconsistent data, etc. Not to mention all the different educational systems. Looking at each country though the results are fairly consistent from 2000 to 2022.
I agree the model is poorly constructed, which is why I concluded American leaders are looking to spread whatever narrative they can to deflect from their own agenda and incompetence.
This seems like a testimony from a pop-science professor. Credentials seem to mostly point to self-help books and paid speaking events. The first graph in the written testimony show a direct decline in scores with screen time. However the linked data does not show this.
Using the US alone scores from 2000 to 2022 have not really moved.[1] They have fluctuated but in those 22 years the score is largely unchanged except in Mathematics where the US has declined. Dr. Horvath links to the 2015 PISA results, but screen time is not a part of that data. I got through the paper to this point and if they already faltering this badly then it's not worth my time to keep reading. Plenty of idiots and misinformed people testify before Congress. That doesn't make their statements empirically true and arguments right.
The sad part is the amount of people who will take it as gospel as it already conforms to their biases of children and technology.
There are plenty of nuance to be had on the situation in China but I wonder what you mean here.
Are you arguing that it's legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?
That's not why he and his company was convicted with multiple counts of sedition. This is what I am talking about. It's a rewriting of reality to fit a neat black and white narrative to suit whatever agenda you want.
The crime of "conspiracy to publish seditious materials" is an unethical law and should be abolished. We can argue that point if you'd like? Furthermore, promoting self rule is not seditious, it's anti imperialist. We can argue that one as well?
The charge of colluding with foreign governments is blowing his actions way out of proportion so as to artificially inflate the severity of his "crime" for political reasons. We can argue that?
We could also argue that the reason the CPC is doing this is to suppress any Hong Kong self-determinist agitation?
Is anything I've said disagreeable on the premise of them being strawmen?
The strawman is saying " legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?" That's not even close to reality.
I don't think anything you said is a strawman though. You can of course argue whether that's right or wrong or how it fits into the greater whole. That's showing nuance. You can come to it with your own opinions and feelings but it's another thing to approach with a predetermined idea of what happened that is nothing like what happened.
Yeah and the actual strawman I tried to point out was assuming that a random person held a very specific belief of how Lai came to be imprisoned and that it was justified.
I mean, originally you only complained about the hyperbole and lack of nuances, there wasn't even anything that implied you agreed with the conviction, let alone the rationale.
Feels like you're trying to purity test. My point still is about the excess of hyperbole and lack of nuance. Whether that's "China did nothing wrong" or "Jimmy is the best person ever." Which you seem to agree with. My feelings on it are kind of irrelevant to that and much more complex than that.
Well, it is difficult to have a nuanced conversation about it, when the dialog coming from the Party itself is always hyperbole like "Make criminals like rats scurrying across the street, with everyone shouting 'Beat them!'"
Like the charges themselves seem hyperbolic to me.
Forcefully reintegrated? Colonialism was the forceful part. Not a country having control of its own land.
He isn’t demanding any will of the people. Unlike the EU, US, etc, Chinese people are actually happy with their democratic China.
In no way in Europe or US can a city claim they want “democratic” independence and go completely against the rest of the country on the side of recent protests and meddling by outside state depts. They would correctly be viewed as traitors and agitators.
How can they be democratically independent when the entire continent is controlled by NATO? Democracy means something. Democracy can’t exist while you’re a vassal state.
There is nothing democratic about China. This is just a fact. Admittedly western countries are also not democratic per definition, but at least they have an elected oligarchy, which is miles closer to democracy than Chinese despotic regime. Even if the regime in China is kinda benevolent to the subjects, it doesn't matter for this question. Democracy is a word used a for a very specific thing, and it's completely absent in China.
It obviously is how? Because they are yellow Asians and not white like you? Hilarious that Europe and the west’s govts are not liked by their people. China’s is. And yet these same westerners act like China is the non democratic and non free country.
Because that's how autocratic regimes like the CCP (asian), Belarus (white), Uganda (black) work? As opposed to states like Taiwan (asian), France (white), South Africa (black).
> Hilarious that Europe and the west’s govts are not liked by their people. China’s is
Tell me you're a CCP troll without telling me you're a CCP troll.
China is basically the epitome of non-democratic - the CCP has even gone so far as to point to the messiness traditionally involved in democracy as a justification for why it doesn't work.
In a country with a one-party authoritarian politicial system, the only conceivable way they'd be allowed to not be so is if a non-predetermined outcome was not considered to be a threat to the CCP.
So in a country of 1.4 billion people, literally it might not be the case, but it 100% effectively is so.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of one party systems. One party systems do not mean everyone agrees on everything. It still has all the nuances of any other political party. There are different factions, ideas and plans and that's what party members run on to get elected. It's pretty much identical to any other democracy with a majority across the government. Plenty of people are cheering on Japan who just elected that.
Obviously the goal is the betterment of the country and society is shared among all the elected officials. That's why they get elected. I think a good portion of the west likes to pretend that they have parties and elected officials who want to overthrow the government in their government. But that's just not true. The overwhelming majority of western countries have actively suppressed or fought back anyone who wants to dismantle or reform the country. So are all democratic elections predetermined as well?
“Used for a specific thing”. Democracy doesn’t mean liberalism. You can’t take a word and make up a meaning. Democracy is a govt that is the will of the people. China is quite literally democratic per that definition. While Europe and the west are not at all.
Also electoralism isn’t democracy. The west is not the entire world. What the west says does not make things so.
I'm not sure what do you mean by liberalism or electoralism or even a will of a people. Especially in this context.
Democracy is a power of citizens to decide on the governing of a country they live in. This doesn't happen anywhere nowadays, except in Switzerland, where "demos"=people can actually execute their will of majority "kratos" to vote on the governing of their country. With some limitations of course, but it is a real democracy.
Other western countries have an elective oligarchy, and people can't decide on what those oligarchs will vote on, the system is indirect.
And China is pure and simple autocracy. A despotia governed a by a single man plus his cronies. There is no election process in China, so demos is completely separated from governing, there is not even indirect link.
The PRC never owned Hong-Kong before the handover and I don't remember the population of Hong-Kong voting for reintegration so yes, forcefully reintegrated seems like a nice way to frame it. Actually taken over would be more correct, traded as merchandise would also be appropriate I guess. You get the idea.
China existed 100 years ago. Hong Kong is Chinese.
I have never come across a person who isn’t a bigot and raging chauvinist who tries to act like the Chinese civilization and the PRC are distinct things. Though not saying you are, you may be an exception
So you are saying that world borders should be redrawn according to a state some few hundred years ago? Please tell be, which exact year do you think we should use for that?
The smugness and superiority about how the rest of the world are immoral barbarians and the global status quo of white/western hegemony is amazing and very moral is pretty funny.
It’s pretty obvious these same people in the past would’ve said the US’s chattel slavery is not that bad because other countries do slavery too. The equivocations westerners will do.
Let’s start with it being hell bent on annexing a peaceful independent island democracy, by force if needed, because of their own political insecurities.
The examples expand from there, but that one alone is sufficient.
You aren't familiar with Chinese illegal occupation of the South China Sea? Or the official government documentation claiming that independent Taiwan is their property?
Brinkmanship with the Philippines and Taiwan, and direct threats of imperialist takeover against the latter (Xi has reaffirmed this recently).
Exploitative labor in Xinjiang is imperialism and led to genocide.
African "investments" is imperialist, it's focused on resource extraction, debt traps and the like. Or was Japan not imperialist when it took over Taiwan, because they built our trains?
Not just westerners can correctly identify PRC imperialism.
Was gonna say the same thing. There are tons of projects that support older unsupported OS versions or even different platforms. Whether that's macOS, Windows, or older versions of the Linux kernel.
reply