I’m about to step away from this thread because I’ve made my point (and everyone has probably made up their mind) but I want to go back to one thing I said.
Let’s focus on building affirmatively and consciously the community we want
We have an opportunity here the likes of which we haven’t seen for at least a decade, if not longer. For too long now we’ve built our communities on platforms provided by the likes of Twitter, Reddit, and (yes) Meta. Now, we not only have the tools to “homestead” these places ourselves, we have what is increasingly a critical mass of people interested in exploring alternatives to the corporate social media world. How many of us have said “well, I don’t like Twitter but I still have a Twitter account because that’s where all my friends are”? (or, if not Twitter, then Facebook, Reddit, etc.)
We’re now starting to see people wanting to get out of those silos and into something less geared towards profit and marketing and surveillance. Some people see this as a threat to the carefully-restricted (I will not say “curated” - oops, I guess I just did) communities they have created here. Other people see it as an opportunity to get more people, more voices, into these communities and conversations. It should be clear by now which side I come down on; how about you?
I will admit that Meta is not the ideal vector for people to find us. If I had my choice, they’d stick to developing their proprietary platforms and leave us alone. But I don’t have my choice; they see a different opportunity than I do, and they’re pursuing it. But it still means there are people potentially joining us that could be really cool, really interesting, really nice to have as part of our circle. Yes, it means there will be bad actors. That’s life. There is no good without bad. I suppose some people feel there will be more bad than good to come of this. I don’t think that way.
I’m reminded of the discipline of Appreciative Inquiry. Its point is to engage stakeholders in decision-making, but to do so from a position of appreciating good things and building upon them to create more good things, as opposed to seeing bad things and trying to correct them. As the Wikipedia article says, it is a distinction between “a Mystery to be Embraced” and “a Problem to be Solved.”
I hope it’s clear by now that I fall on the Mystery to be Embraced side of the fence. This is an opportunity, not a crisis. There are ways to make sure our philosophy succeeds; we just need to find them. I don’t think we’ll find them by considering Meta users as unwelcome. Some of you come down on the Problem to be Solved side, and your proposed solutions clash with mine. That’s OK. We have all been heard, as we should be, as we are all stakeholders. I hope some of you will join me in the opportunistic view, but that’s not for me to decide.
I am now going to step away and let others have the floor, so to speak. Be well.
Comparing to “homesteading” is an interesting choice. Perhaps to you the term bears connotations of freedom, community, adventure, creativity or nostalgia. But a more comprehensive view would be that the state used extreme violence to appropriate land and natural resources from an existing population. Homesteading was the subsequent privatization of the nominally public lands. It was privatized specifically into the hands of people who it was thought would be loyal and suitable, if sometimes remote, subjects of the state. Their loyalty was reinforced by arranging things so that the settlers were perpetually engaged in relationships of domination either directly or implicitly, with the prior residents of the land and other conquered people.
I guess I am wondering… to follow your analogy… you think you/we are the settlers in this situation? Seems like Meta is the state/military. Their users are the homesteaders and the libre community is the historic but already weakened pre existing communities.
Just like so called “pioneers”, meta users as people can have all kinds of good intentions at the outset however the situation is one of inherent tensions. The territory is vast and we are in a relatively weakened position. Therefor, we unable to defend it sufficiently to prevent incursions, even if we were all in agreement about wanting to. The conquering institutions will enter and they will bring people along under various pretenses, with messaging and structures that favor the extension of their power. Some settlers will defect but most will just try to make it work in the context they find themselves— like people always do. Structurally, we are in conflict even though as individuals I don’t think anyone bears particular ill will towards the other. And in both the historical and contemporary situations, the groups are not completely distinct and clear cut. Humans instantly become intertwined with one another when the opportunity arises so there is plenty of intermingling and relationships.
However if the sight of platoons and caravans approaching in the distance leads to apprehension, the ominous feeling is justified. We must represent our own interests, and what are arguably the broader interests of humanity, using tactics from diplomacy to guerilla. We should be vigilant in self defense and not wait til its too late to engage whatever potentially effective means are available to us. I am not sure what those are.
(In case it is not clear, I hope I am not read as flippantly comparing anything happening to lemmy as equivalent to the horrors of genocide. This situations has the violence dial turned waaaaay down. However there are certain narrative elements that bear a similarity so I wanted to expand upon the analogy to colonization as a positive thing at all, and one that we are on the winning side of.)
But it still means there are people potentially joining us that could be really cool, really interesting, really nice to have as part of our circle.
And when they are ready to explore, those people can use the many available tools not built by shitty corporations with shitty intentions and many, many, many shitty users.
I’m about to step away from this thread because I’ve made my point (and everyone has probably made up their mind) but I want to go back to one thing I said.
We have an opportunity here the likes of which we haven’t seen for at least a decade, if not longer. For too long now we’ve built our communities on platforms provided by the likes of Twitter, Reddit, and (yes) Meta. Now, we not only have the tools to “homestead” these places ourselves, we have what is increasingly a critical mass of people interested in exploring alternatives to the corporate social media world. How many of us have said “well, I don’t like Twitter but I still have a Twitter account because that’s where all my friends are”? (or, if not Twitter, then Facebook, Reddit, etc.)
We’re now starting to see people wanting to get out of those silos and into something less geared towards profit and marketing and surveillance. Some people see this as a threat to the carefully-restricted (I will not say “curated” - oops, I guess I just did) communities they have created here. Other people see it as an opportunity to get more people, more voices, into these communities and conversations. It should be clear by now which side I come down on; how about you?
I will admit that Meta is not the ideal vector for people to find us. If I had my choice, they’d stick to developing their proprietary platforms and leave us alone. But I don’t have my choice; they see a different opportunity than I do, and they’re pursuing it. But it still means there are people potentially joining us that could be really cool, really interesting, really nice to have as part of our circle. Yes, it means there will be bad actors. That’s life. There is no good without bad. I suppose some people feel there will be more bad than good to come of this. I don’t think that way.
I’m reminded of the discipline of Appreciative Inquiry. Its point is to engage stakeholders in decision-making, but to do so from a position of appreciating good things and building upon them to create more good things, as opposed to seeing bad things and trying to correct them. As the Wikipedia article says, it is a distinction between “a Mystery to be Embraced” and “a Problem to be Solved.”
I hope it’s clear by now that I fall on the Mystery to be Embraced side of the fence. This is an opportunity, not a crisis. There are ways to make sure our philosophy succeeds; we just need to find them. I don’t think we’ll find them by considering Meta users as unwelcome. Some of you come down on the Problem to be Solved side, and your proposed solutions clash with mine. That’s OK. We have all been heard, as we should be, as we are all stakeholders. I hope some of you will join me in the opportunistic view, but that’s not for me to decide.
I am now going to step away and let others have the floor, so to speak. Be well.
Comparing to “homesteading” is an interesting choice. Perhaps to you the term bears connotations of freedom, community, adventure, creativity or nostalgia. But a more comprehensive view would be that the state used extreme violence to appropriate land and natural resources from an existing population. Homesteading was the subsequent privatization of the nominally public lands. It was privatized specifically into the hands of people who it was thought would be loyal and suitable, if sometimes remote, subjects of the state. Their loyalty was reinforced by arranging things so that the settlers were perpetually engaged in relationships of domination either directly or implicitly, with the prior residents of the land and other conquered people.
I guess I am wondering… to follow your analogy… you think you/we are the settlers in this situation? Seems like Meta is the state/military. Their users are the homesteaders and the libre community is the historic but already weakened pre existing communities.
Just like so called “pioneers”, meta users as people can have all kinds of good intentions at the outset however the situation is one of inherent tensions. The territory is vast and we are in a relatively weakened position. Therefor, we unable to defend it sufficiently to prevent incursions, even if we were all in agreement about wanting to. The conquering institutions will enter and they will bring people along under various pretenses, with messaging and structures that favor the extension of their power. Some settlers will defect but most will just try to make it work in the context they find themselves— like people always do. Structurally, we are in conflict even though as individuals I don’t think anyone bears particular ill will towards the other. And in both the historical and contemporary situations, the groups are not completely distinct and clear cut. Humans instantly become intertwined with one another when the opportunity arises so there is plenty of intermingling and relationships.
However if the sight of platoons and caravans approaching in the distance leads to apprehension, the ominous feeling is justified. We must represent our own interests, and what are arguably the broader interests of humanity, using tactics from diplomacy to guerilla. We should be vigilant in self defense and not wait til its too late to engage whatever potentially effective means are available to us. I am not sure what those are.
(In case it is not clear, I hope I am not read as flippantly comparing anything happening to lemmy as equivalent to the horrors of genocide. This situations has the violence dial turned waaaaay down. However there are certain narrative elements that bear a similarity so I wanted to expand upon the analogy to colonization as a positive thing at all, and one that we are on the winning side of.)
And when they are ready to explore, those people can use the many available tools not built by shitty corporations with shitty intentions and many, many, many shitty users.