Founder of slrpnk.net, now busy with other projects :)

  • 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2022

help-circle


  • Try to be informed about the stuff you can have an impact on

    For example on my rss feed I just wiped out most of the non EU stuff. It’s ok to know that there are wildfires somewhere in the world but being overexposed is really just toxic

    I can organize here in Italy, not even the whole of it but my region and the cities I spend time in. It’s much better to know what my little city council is discussing about rather than any even major event but so far from me.

    Unluckily, social media doesn’t help too much with curating the feeds but as others said try to work more on mutes and filters. Don’t forget that getting informed is just one tool for change, do not get too high on it :)

    Edit and P.S. : it’s also much easier that on social networks driven by engagement algorithms the posts that travel the most are the ones that cause hate/rage and sex or generally emotions easier to exploit online. Newspapers themselves tend to post more negative stuff. It’s just a human bias, take it into account and watch around yourself to find the positive stuff of life





  • “Random” events of “evil”. Basically I think we’ll never reach something like 0 murders, 0 rapes, 0 stealing for little greed and so on. Or even 0 addiction (edit: i’m not including addiction to the previous list of crimes, i wanted to add it as another class of issues for we will never reach a true 0)

    We are very very far from the ideal situation tho, there is a looot of margin of improvement

    Like your alcohol thing in the post: ban only makes it worse and still now you (as US, not you OP) have a very weird relationship with alcohol with the thing that minors cannot touch it and people have to drink from a paper bag lol. Let’s say that you are not really trying hard to improve the situation. We’ll never reach 0 alcoholists but society is not in a good shape and alcohol is cheap so ye









  • Games can be one of the nice forms of entertainment like tv series or films, so i’d say yes.

    Just try to look for really good games, like zelda breath of the wild, bioshock infinite, twelve minutes, sayonara wild hearts and so on. No online games, no infinite games, no games that are more like a job than a game (where you have to grind for everything) and so on. Games that let you enjoy the gameplay, the art and the story without making you feel like ‘‘oh i have to login or i lose the fit and i have to get the daily rewards and bla bla bla’’.



  • ex_06@slrpnk.nettoSelf-hosting@slrpnk.netAn invitation to agree
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    proposed by different people

    English speakers internet literate so we would have already cut down most of the world

    then we help each other within our limited means

    So it doesn’t solve the problem that is the fact that the richer(s? 🤔) need to pay for the lasts and we would be just in a worse situation than now (at least here in Europe would be much worse than status quo, in US idk)

    The system I propose applies to everyone who agrees, without geographic bounds. You pick and choose the agreements that you believe in, and therefore the people you want to associate with, and the way in which you want to associate with them. It’s consent vs coercion.

    Yep I got this part right and I’ve also had the same idea in the past. But never tried to implement it because of the stuff we already saying + if someone is already paying 40% of their income in taxes how would they live agreeing to another set of law for another 40% of the remaining? Either all reclaiming some sort of indipendence from their country (and now we asking people much more than just following the rules, but to live as outlaws in their countries) or idk living with almost no income. Reclaiming land by grouping in an area and slowly taking political control by consent still looks more realistic and less dangerous to me (but it requires people to move and looks like no one wants that lol)

    maybe even a nuclear exchange

    People that want this could agree on this and could be the people that have the power to do that while us agreeing on not doing this with 0 power over them, for example. Or just most of the world agreeing on “there may be only 2 genders and 2 only” and stuff like this :o

    I find myself wishing to exclude me and my people from the system but that would be just a way to protect us during the future events, not to actually change the world

    Btw check out the, I think abandoned, basisproject.net in the meanwhile; also circles basic income


  • ex_06@slrpnk.nettoSelf-hosting@slrpnk.netAn invitation to agree
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    i kinda agree on everything and i also think about social networks with a positive outcome quite a lot myself so i’ve read it interested in the topic. The main issue is the old ‘‘the devil lies in the details’’.

    sharing agreemement, easy; sharing them with technology, easy; creating communities around those agreements, kinda easy and so on. What’s the hardest bottleneck? actually recreating a whole legislation of agreements. All of this stuff doesn’t require a single platform, we already live deep down a form of this social network governed by game theory. Every platform we use every app every club we go to every group have implicit agreements.

    So the question is: does making them explicit help or not?

    My answer is… Not really. We have rules everywhere, also on this lemmy instance. I wrote them kinda carefully to be based on easily agreeable principles and to set a tone and, most of all, to be brief. Having agreements for everything goes against being brief and easily agreeable. The skii example is a good one: what if i don’t skii? i just don’t partecipate in the agreement and so weaken the power of those who do? What if all poor people agree on universal healthcare but rich people don’t? This brings us to the part of ‘‘convincing people to agree’’ and so we are just making politics from scratch again.

    I think this comment is a bit chaotic but i’ll try to make a tldr: a platform like that would be overhead and in some cases also dangerous; we need to raise the common ground by talking to people, there are no tech tools to hack this (no, AI could just parrot an emphatic leader, can’t actually choose the words to connect to the person we have in front of). We can’t escape the political spade work :O

    p.s. i also have on my mind to write a blog post about this, how people keep trying to solve the moderation problem with tech instead of just making it sustainable to resolve it socially