It subordinates all creative output to the priorities of advertising. On Lemmy (in fact any web forum) I’m a member and a discussion participant. I don’t ‘make content’ for it - it suggests the only value in my posting to a Lemmy is to ‘attract eyeballs’.
The ability to dress and chisel marble and have your creations still talked about half a millennia later, and being the most recognizable singer on the planet, aren’t fungible.
Has Lemmy ever noticed how much the Anglophone web speaks like advertisers now?
I’m off to Youtube now to watch some content. Gotta get that new content! Thanks to modern networking technologies I’ll never run out of content! Does the non-English web do the same? Are the French and Russians and Chinese similarly indoctrinated?
Let’s rewrite some Wikipedia entry intros to see our adopted term work its wonders:
Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni[a] (6 March 1475 – 18 February 1564), known mononymously as Michelangelo,[b][1] was an Italian content creator of the High Renaissance.`
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) was an English content creator who wrote content under the pen name of George Orwell.[2][3]
Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American content creator. Dubbed the “King of Content”, he is regarded as one of the most significant figures of the 20th century. Over a four-decade career, his content broke racial barriers in America and made him a global figure. Through content, he proliferated visual performance for artists in popular music; popularizing content including the moonwalk (which he named), the robot, and the anti-gravity lean. Jackson is often deemed the greatest content creator of all time based on his content and subscribers.[1]
After watching Content on Youtube I’ll probably visit the zoo to marvel at the meat. Then later I might load Pornhub and watch some meat. By then it’ll be time for some dinner, so the butcher will fix me up with some meat.
This language demeans all creative endeavour. It trashes our ability to communicate. When read out loud it’s infantilising too.
This whole thread is a Reddit-style two minutes’ hate session that gets pissy about the language of his post without addressing the content.
Eich is right to be wary of US Intelligence infiltration of the non-profit sector, and his characterization of the sector’s hiring preferences is probably accurate.
Also the image presented by the glowies concept is hilarious, and demonstrates again why the Right memes better than the Left.
because you know servers don’t need that shit.
No. Dead wrong. It’s precisely the frontline staff who need customer feedback, and if makes them uncomfortable then so much the better.
It’s the rank and file’s job to pass criticism of the service offering on in team meetings, culture surveys, etc. My job sucks this week because I have to do x and yet the customers all hate it. Staff will drive change to policy when it’s their ears copping the response day-to-day.
‘I couldn’t possibly bother the floor person’ is code for ‘I am going to tolerate in silence any corporate policy no matter how obnoxious’, and line management and the executive know it.
What I’ve learned over the last few years:
grug friends not understand complexity demon, grug thinks they not see demon, otherwise no more fur and mammoth tusks
20 was the lead engineer ‘mishearing’ Zuck after he said 2.
Say it with me, peeps. Tenant on your own land!
Sounds like the protocol equivalent of regulatory capture.
Make it easy to buy stuff and people will.
In case you haven’t worked it out by now, the following advice may be of help:
They’re not gonna do that
but if you have a problem with the wages, just tip more.
enabler | noun
en·abler i-ˈnā-b(ə-)lər
: one that enables another to achieve an end especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (such as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior
sharing - this one is key. I use a shared shopping list and we both need to add and edit.
Get jotting with your friends in seconds: https://pad.disroot.org/
A Boeing suicide…
A crass nickname for the CIA Prize for Journalism if I ever saw one.
Or put another way, it’s enabling advertisers to better camouflage themselves as humans. (Because we just cannot have people communicating directly to each other on the web…)
No, Mr Mangione! A Fortune 500 executive is a living, enterprising creature!
I don’t care…heheheh <ebike swerves onto sidewalk>
Competitor lobbying doesn’t even enter into it, I’d guess.
The US State Department won’t tolerate Americans being exposed to media that doesn’t adhere to its view of the world. What large groups of Americans think - and vitally, the bounds of what they are permitted to think - is a national security ‘issue’ in the eyes of the state. No such problem exists with Facebook, cable news, the establishment newspapers, etc. As Chomsky teaches, propaganda is equally about what isn’t in the news.
I got the feeling Arkane was always shit at org politics, to be honest. Creative energy without corporate strategy. Big shame.
Take this social media law, plus the software backdoor nonsense from a few years ago, and I can’t help but see a clear message emerging from legislators to Australian developers who’d seek to build great digital spaces and tools: Do not domicile anything in this country. Do not host anything on servers in this country. Expect hostility from authorities toward the anonymity, security, and privacy of the people using your code.
I hope you’re wrong, and they’re going to arbitarily apply the law to King Doge and Zuck, with everyone else getting ignored.
What I find intriguing is the potential for fediverse/decentralized service uptake amongst Australians, should the corporate providers decide it’s too much bother implementing an identity solution for 26m people and simply rangebans them.
In an alternate universe, parents are devoting 10 per cent of their doomscrolling time to studying their router manuals and determining access windows for social media on their LAN. But why obtain a gram of education to address a serious parenting issue when a ton of democracy-threatening legislation driven by politics will achieve a quarter of the same thing?
Surely people see this for what it is, a censorship mechanism that relies on people’s laziness and preference for convenience for effectiveness.
Even if Apple Intelligence were good, why would anyone in their right mind allow a middleman to interfere with their ability to communicate with others?