giorovv

I am not sure communism really evr existed in big scale, so the meme is not accurate. Please don't say Stalin was communist, unkess you don't want to read me saying I am a pole dancer (I am not).

Lemmers?

I am quite new here, I didn't have reddit, I come from fb. I choose Lemmy because it is not own by a fucking schizophrenic billionarie (I mean shittenberg, I don't know who owns reddit, but it is USA and, not to offend anyone, but I am very fed of USA in general) and this for me is enough. I think the issue with our data is mainly what companies do with it (of course the privacy principle itself too matters), and the issue with centralization is that here I am free to say to an admin or a mod to go fuck himself, if I ever feel doing so. And change my instance. This is something unimaginable in the classic socials. You pointed out a list of reasons but actually didn't elaborate any of them, and I am curious. Please elaborate.

Well we can"t know wheter the little brand we choose will be the next Nestle, but this is a thing we shouldn't exactly worry too much about. Following this reasonment, I should kill every person I meet around, because you never know who they are going to be in the future... I think someone who knows the truth and still continues to buy from a certain brand because "it is better", though knowing there exist more ethical alternatives, that person is just a most horrible kind of creature, not even a human being, from a purely philosopical and psychological point of view. Don't take it personal, I don't know what your decisions has been finally.

Se una tale cosa accadesse nel Poliverso cosa seguirebbe? Se ad esempio Feddit fosse censurato? Dovremmo spostarci su un'altra istanza per continuare a usare Lemmy?

Well I didn't even know the meaning of that "s"!

Si ma queste aziende devono stare in piedi in qualche modo. Lasciando stare fb, che starebbe probabilmente in piedi grazie ad altre entrate, il concetto generale è: noi abbiamo bisogno di soldi, quindi, se tu ci paghi direttamente noi ti forniamo il servizio senza pubblicità, altrimenti noi useremo la pubblicità per ottenere i soldi che tu non ci dai. Questa è una regola basilare e giusta. Il prossimo passo, auspicabile in un futuro purtroppo non vicino, sarebbe la conpleta dissoluzione del sistema dei cookie e il ritorno alla sacra regola del "io ti do un servizio, tu me lo paghi". Ad ogni modo, credo che fb sia stata multata più che altro per via dei suoi tentativi (riusciti) di monopolizzare il mercato. E Apple uguale.

Ma infatti io non capisco esattamente dove stia il problema qui. Nel senso, io sono felice che Meta abbia ricevuto una multa del genere, e spero che ne arrivino altre ben più pesanti (ché questa non è quasi niente per Meta), ma il motivo mi sfugge: almeno apparentemente, l'iniziativa di far pagare gli utenti per avere in cambio una riduzione (anche se dovrebbe essere una eliminazione totale) dell'utilizzo dei loro dati non è altro che un'iniziativa che volge la piattaforma verso un mercato più sano, un mercato dove le persone semplicemente pagano i servizi. Che fra l'altro è anche ciò che l'EU pare desideri. Perciò davvero non capisco. Forse dietro la multa ci sono altre dinamiche, ad esempio il pratico monopolio di Meta nel mondo dei social...

Grazie a voi!

Thank you! According to your explication of memes, which I agree on, the whole thing would be quite sad and risky, socially speaking. Because it means we all would be giving away our ability to pick a very specific term for an already-existent one, possibly since the second option is just cheaper, in terms of effort. This regardless that the one we chose is not the most suitable and could even be misleading, included "sanewashining". For example, people reading that Meta is trying to buy Trump's goodwill will be probably more gentle in judging Meta, while the journalust goal was maybe to describe how Meta is a dangerous company (if it wasnt his, it is surely mine). This specific attempt partially failed, of course. So "sane-washing" is in itself a sane-washing term to indicate a more or less serious kind of misinformation. In this sense, smaller newspapers are more likely to avoid this linguistic simplification, since they are probably less controlled by statal agencies (maybe I am wrong?). I appreciate very much your insight, and though I know everyone is biased, I will take a look at your suggestions.

Not huge, indeed. It is possible, and desirable, that the EU is playing strategy with them. Maybe they hit softly now, just to show they mean to go on this regulation-path they choose, and to give a "warning". Maybe they considered a too aggressive fine could make things worse. I'm not sure, just thinking.

😂