pjhenry1216

This is a ridiculous analogy. It’s also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you’re doing is trying to claim I’m making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn’t communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn’t been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I’m not even claiming communism can or can’t work. Just that the arguments provided don’t support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn’t give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I’ve even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

You act as if it’s been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it’s not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn’t devolve into it. It’s simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you’re unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don’t know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn’t devolve into authoritarianism. They’re not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It’s like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn’t devolve into one. They’re not the same thing.

You’re technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don’t believe communism would work either. Communism isn’t the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren’t actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.

Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.

It’s a shame that it’s even considered “radical” since it’s basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today’s copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There’s no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.

Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?

No. No it wasn’t. I’ve been here since YouTube started and have never seen this. People thinking they’re experience is everyone’s experience is wild.

Gotta support open source wherever you can.

That’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.

I don’t see how it doesn’t violate free speech. Imagine needing the government’s permission to talk to someone?

Edit: forgot a word