• Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really don’t understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook’s power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.

    • ryper
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This seems relevant: My Distaste For Your Solution Does Not Mean Disregard For The Problem

      Anyway, I don’t think this law would reduce Meta’s power if the company cooperated, because if Meta only falls under the law if it has power then news organizations have an incentive to make sure it keeps enough power to keep the law applicable and keep getting them paid.

    • EhForumUser
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really don’t understand the people who rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18.

      Because it is what is most likely to provoke a reaction? Like all internet comments, the words aren’t grounded in anything. They are crafted such that they attempt to get something back in return (a reply, a vote, etc.) If you want to learn what people really think, you need to find a way into their private journal (without them knowing, else you will influence the activity). As soon as other people become involved, the motivations change.

      (on an open source social media platform of all places!)

      Well, if Lemmy ever becomes popular, it too will become subject to the same law. Open source especially doesn’t like such encumberments. This surprises you, why?

      • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No it wouldn’t become subject to the same law. A new and different law would be required. But that’s wildly hypothetical, given the differences between an open distributed system and a massive private corporation.

        Also, human behaviour and social interactions are seldom quite so transactional.

        • EhForumUser
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Bill C-18 clearly includes Lemmy in theory, only excluding it by virtue of it not being considered dominant. That could change some day should it ever become popular.

          As much as humans don’t like to admit it, human behaviour is always perfectly transactional.

          • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please take this as friendly advice: you appear to be describing a dangerous view of social relationships and this could get you in some potentially very serious trouble with the people around you. Please, do not treat your relationships with other people as transactional.

            • EhForumUser
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If someone is going to cause trouble because of some words someone said, they are mentally unwell and it is best to get that out in the open so they can receive the help they need.

              Everything is transactional. Even trying to not be transactional towards another because it makes you feel good that you are not being transactional is actually transactional. Those good feelings the other person gave you are payment for your efforts.

                • EhForumUser
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What’s the risk? I get murdered by a madman because I uttered some insignificant words they weren’t able to process appropriately? If that’s the risk, I should be talking the police, not a psychologist or psychotherapist.

                  • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m trying to be delicate, but the misguided rhetoric you are advocating is commonly used to justify violent, psychopathic, and misogynistic behaviour. You need to stop thinking of human social relationships as transactional. They are not. You could really hurt someone if this is genuinely what you believe.