A lot of people seem to think that having online platforms strictly police users' expression has got to be a good thing, because it protects people from marginalized segments of the population from bullying by trolls. The reality is, it can have exactly the opposite effect:
I've come across reports by radical women of colour, queer activists, indigenous people, and others, of similar abuse of moderation tools by brigades of trolls on FB, Titter etc. It's complicated.
@Wolf480pl in the 1990s most propertarians (pro-capitalist "libertarians") and rationalists thought climate change was a socialist hoax or a luddite superstition. The ability the net have them to go right back to the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, without leaving their computers, means these attitudes are now much rarer amongst these groups. TV didn't and couldn't do that.
@Wolf480pl was the news presenting climate scientists and "skeptics" head-to-head, as if their arguments and evidence were of equivalent quality? There are plenty of ways to cover an issue while subtly misdirecting people. That's not impossible on the net (centralised, algorithmic "social media" recreates those dynamics of TV to some degree), but online it remains a lot quicker and easier to cross-reference across multiple newsrooms, and check primary sources.
@cjd I'm really not sure what you're arguing for here. If your claim is that "nobody's fighting back" against climate change activism, that's so far off the mark it's not even wrong. Standing Rock was climate change activism (amongst other things) and as you say, there was plenty of fighting back against that. There are whole corporate-funded conferences dedicated to blowing smoke about climate change being a hoax, or not being a serious problem, or mitigation being too expensive.
> most web users aren't afraid to click links.
If they're not running something like #NoScript, there are good reasons they should be. Most aren't afraid to use HTML in email either, or install apps from untrusted sources on the same devices they use for banking etc. There are plenty of things uneducated users haven't been taught the dangers of doing. This seems like an odd criteria for evaluating engineering decisions about future technologies.
... you need to make an initial contact with the P2P network somehow. Already knowing someone in the network is one way. Pubs are another. They are not servers, just public nodes.
A core assumption of #democracy is that governments and "experts" can be wrong, that laws and policies sometimes need to be overturned. Discovering when that's the case absolutely depends on the ability of fringe groups to express and campaign on dissenting views, all of which will seem abhorrent and obviously wrong to *someone*. Governments forcing monopolistic #datafarm platforms to censor fringe views is a threat to an emerging global democracy. We must prevent this, not applaud it.
#Mediawatch on #RadioNZ interview folks from #InternetNZ about the dangerous precedent created by ISPs censoring the net, after the mosque shootings in #Christchurch:
@Wolf480pl what kinds of TV shows were teaching you about climate change in this period? Science education programs maybe? I bet it wasn't the news or primetime current affairs shows or documentaries.
> Nobody's fighting back...
What about #ExtinctionRebellion? The #StandingRock occupation? The grassroots campaigns all around the world against fracking, new coal mines, and offshore oil exploration? Sure, there's astroturf trying to bend climate change responses in profitable (and/or ineffective) ways. But the vast majority of the astroturf is still from "skeptics" funded by Koch et al
@Wolf480pl sure, but that concern is somewhat orthogonal to my original statement at the start of this thread.
> anyone could participate
Anyone with an email address. Mistaking that for 'anyone in the world', and excluding anyone who doesn't use email (or SMS or whatever) is exactly the risk I'm talking about
Dr #FlorianGraiche was interviewed by #KimHill on about #bioplastic, the 6 Rs of waste reduction, and the importance of design thinking in reducing waste and increasing product sustainability. Available here as a #RadioNZ #podcast:
@msh I agree with everything you're saying ... *except*
> We must embrace democracy, not meritocracy.
I think we must embrace *both*. That way we get actual meritocracy, rather than thinly veiled aristocracy pretending to be based on merit. Real meritocracy just means things like the code that gets committed is the most demonstrably efficient, secure patch, not just the most popular.
@Wolf480pl again, I think you're reversing cause and effect. Through the 1980s and 90s, activism and science education battled against the fossil fool propaganda pushed through the TV networks. The net tipped the balance against the TV propaganda and accepting anthropogenic climate change became the mainstream position. So some companies saw the writing on the wall and invested in products like CFL that could be marketed as "low carbon".
@Wolf480pl again, I'm think you're mistaking the current dynamics of the Mastodon network for the whole fediverse. I often have many different discussions going on with different people. They are all public, true. But that's because most AP apps haven't yet implemented the group and privacy aspects defined in AP. This is coming. See the Pleroma blog article about using #ObjectCapabilities to implement privacy in the fediverse.
@mathew good quote :) Keep in mind though that despite being viewed by many as the spiritual leader of all Buddhism, HH is only the leader of one school of Tibetan Buddhism, not even all Tibetan Buddhists (Chapman follows a very different Tibetan lineage). HH is kind of like the Pope of Buddhism, or maybe more like the Archbishop of Canterbury of Buddhism. Indian and Thai Buddhist traditions, for example, are often more evangelical and much less secular in their doctrine than HH.