this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
266 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37735 readers
43 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] beefcat 70 points 8 months ago (5 children)

The elongated muskrat is learning first hand how the Nazi Bar Problem works

[–] strawberry@kbin.run 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

excuse me but what the fuck is the nazi bat problem

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 38 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

So, basically, if you tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually wipe out tolerance.

A more accurate way to say it is, "if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance."

It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they're minding their own business. I just think a bar owner is free to kick people out for representing Nazis purely because it's their bar and they can do what they want.

But X's problem is a bit different from the Nazi Bar problem, in that you don't really see the Neo Nazis on X sitting there minding their own business. You ONLY see them voicing their intolerance. Which of course, should not be tolerated.

Tolerate tolerate tolerate. There.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 34 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business

it is a fallacy that the intolerant mind their own business. being intolerant is, itself, an active state, not a passive one, and one to be actively resisted. being intolerant involves choice, a choice to be intolerant. there is no "minding one's own business" in being intolerant, as being intolerant necessarily involves minding the business of others and then making the choice to react to it.

so your argument is, itself, spurious for it is fallacious in its foundation.

gtfo with your nazi apologism

The Paradox of Tolerance

Tolerate tolerate tolerate. There.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 17 points 8 months ago

Nazism—the attempt to organize the commission of genocide—is an act of violence and must always be responded to as such.

Nazism is never minding its own business.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 15 points 8 months ago

A more accurate way to say it is, "if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance."

If the intolerant could mind their own business and tolerate people they didn't agree with, they literally wouldn't be part of the intolerant. That's the point: it's a core part of who they are and we have to cut it out like a cancer to have a tolerant society. (Sorry for making you read the T-word so many times.)

[–] Mint@lemmy.one 38 points 8 months ago

You have a bar: Nazi comes into your bar, you let him stay, because why not its just a single nazi. Nazi invites friends, those friends invite their friends, and so on. Now you a have nazi bar.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 28 points 8 months ago

excuse me but what the fuck is the nazi bat problem

When you find a nazi but you can't find a bat.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 49 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

He’s making X into a “whites only” platform. What did he expect?

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 22 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I remain convinced he's killing it on purpose. I don't know a plausible motive, but I guarantee it's on purpose.

[–] kubica@kbin.social 21 points 8 months ago

I used to think so too, but I don't know if he is also bad at that because it is taking him longer than I expected.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 18 points 8 months ago

If he wanted to kill it on purpose, he could have just shut it down. Maybe to keep the trademark he could have launched some other telecommunications service and used the brand for that.

Elon Musk is all about convincing people to act against their best interests to benefit him. For example, look at Tesla: it has a manufacturing capacity of ~2 million cars per year. Now look at Toyota: it has a manufacturing capacity of ~9 million vehicles per year. Now look at the market capitalisation of each company: for Tesla it is still about $535B, despite some fall from the peak in 2022. For Toyota, it is $416B (which is a record high).

So Toyota makes almost 5 times as many cars a year, but is worth 78% of Tesla? And the production capacity and value gap was even more extreme in the past? I think the question then is, what is going on?

The answer, of course, is Musk. He is very slick at convincing investors to act against their own best interests (usually by suggesting the possibility of things that happen to have the true objective along the way, like full self-driving cars by 2018 rather than competing with existing auto-makers, or 35 minute travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles, or a colony on mars rather than competing with existing satellite companies). This is the same skill-set as a confidence artist. I don't mean to imply that Musk has necessarily done anything illegal, but due to the similarity in skill set, and the large scale at which he operates, it would be fair to call him the most successful con artist in history. Looking at it through this lens can help to identify his motive.

So what would a con artist want with a social network, and why would he want to alienate a whole lot of people, and get a lot of haters?

Well, the truth is that a con artist doesn't need everyone to believe in them to make money - they just need the marks to believe in them. Con artists don't want the people who see through the con (call them the haters for lack of a better word) to interfere with their marks though. At the small scale - e.g. a street con, the con artist might separate a couple where one partner is the mark, to prevent the other from alerting their partner to the scam. But in addition to separating the marks from the haters, con artists use brainwashing techniques to create a psychological barrier between the marks and the haters. A Nigerian Prince scammer might try to convince a mark that their accountant can't be trusted. A religious cult con might brainwash followers to think their family are different from them, and if they try to provide external perspective, they are acting as the devil. They try to make the marks the in-group, and everyone else, even family and friends, the out-group who doesn't care about the in-group.

So what would a con artist in control of a social network do? They would start by giving the con artist the megaphone - amplifying everything the artist says to try to get more marks. In parallel, they'd try to get rid of the haters. They could shadow-ban them so the marks never see what they have to say, or they could put up small barriers the marks will happily jump over, and feel more invested in the platform having done that, but which would scare off the haters. However, the marks and the haters might still interact off the social network - so the scam artist would also want to create a culture war to try to make the marks hate the haters, and ignore anything they say, by amplifying messages hostile to the haters.

So what can you do if you don't want a world wrecked by divisions sewn just so billionaires can be even richer? My suggestion is don't buy into the divisions - work to find common ground with people, even if others are saying just to ignore them because they are different and will never get it, and get in early before the divisions are too deep.

[–] eveninghere 7 points 8 months ago

The problem with this narrative is that Musk lost money doing so.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

When the only people I saw there were the leftest lefties I ever saw... then he just alienated all of them

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

Elon is a very odd duck, and not at all in a good way.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 39 points 8 months ago (30 children)

With so many options becoming available, increasingly less people will select the platform preferred by Nazis.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 30 points 8 months ago

Twitter is for fascists & their sympathizers.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 22 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My wife insists she's staying there for the news and legal people she follows and she has a point. A lot of government, business, and schools continue to use it as an easy way to broadcast information.

Threads pulled off some celebrities, Bsky some policy and legal wonks, and Mastodon the tech geeks. If these services all start federating together and offering unified text and hashtag search, then where you land won't matter.

Until then, it'll be hard to get people to switch away, even with all the bad press.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 31 points 8 months ago

If these services all start federating together

No one should federate with meta.

[–] Cosmocrat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's a damn racket when most of the artists I enjoy only post on twatter. Just upload to mastodon too ffs!

[–] breden@reddthat.com 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is it really a racket though? Most artists are not tech geeks and desire cultivated feeds instead of .. none.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

At this point Musk has platformed all of the undesirables of the internet. He's a big, blinking, neon sign that says "there are no adults in the room, do whatever you want."

That could be a service to the rest of us. It would be nice if, now that they're all concentrated there, the internet could quietly agree to shadowban the entire site. Just disappear it from search results, conversation, "zeitgeist." Let all of the toxic users keep each other busy while the rest of us enjoy a cleaner internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago

I never liked Twitter to begin with, once it became an unabashed environment for hate it was a piece of cake to close my account.

[–] spiderman@ani.social 13 points 8 months ago

Well, he says X is a free speech platform when it clearly isn't. Blud can't even take a joke.

[–] storksforlegs 13 points 8 months ago

At least thats kind of reassuring in a way, that part of it is people dont want to associate with that stuff. (Though I realize that isnt the only reason)

[–] ulkesh 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, this is what happens when you take a big shit in people's cereal. They tend to leave. I, too, could be an analyst.

[–] Zworf 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah telling your advertising megacustomers to go F.. themselves on TV and naming them explicitly. Wow. That's some kind of nasty.

It totally proved Disney right, too.

[–] Tarte@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

He drove me back into using RSS after more than a decade for staying up to date. Much better for the mental health. Thankfully, since Wordpress and also some other CMS have the RSS feature enabled by default, many websites have it even if they’re not advertising it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ULS@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago

It's morbid but the only use it has to me is info on live shitty events.

[–] Megaman_EXE 10 points 8 months ago

I only follow specific youtubers and artists. If stray away from my specific feed, Twitter is too scary lol. I am at a loss for good social media though. It seems like most social media sites have just gotten worse over the past decade.

I guess there's pros an cons to it all. Pro: less time wasted on social media Con: I've missed out on some information that is sometimes good to know.

[–] PoliticallyIncorrect@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

So at what point does/did it reach death spiral?

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

When the “large” voices leave in significant numbers - in the UK it is used wildly by public sector and charity organisations, there are official governmental Twitter accounts, all the broadcasters have accounts.

[–] Midnitte 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Really wish I could convince local government entities to switch to Mastodon - my local police said it was "subject to O.P.R.A." and needed to meet retention rules (if you rolled your own...), and the state wildfire commission said they were looking at Threads :/

So instead, both are still stuck on the platform that requires a login to see posts and filled with nazis.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

There's probably a sociology theory that would apply, but my guess would be a loss of 33% of active users over the course of 6 months.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 8 months ago

174 million daily active users. Wake me up when it's the same as mastodon.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

load more comments
view more: next ›