It doesn’t change absolutely anything in my argument, it remains exactly the same. Antinatalism absconds not only the responsibility to improve the world but even the possibility of a better world existing in the future, it assumes à priori that existence is and will remain insufferable.

You’re contradicting your own argument:

It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.

Vs

Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination.

This is a contradiction. You are literally picking the antinatalist option because of shitty living conditions.

And of course, the lack of imagination is not whether you can imagine things being better but whether you can imagine things becoming better starting from where we are here and now.

=======

We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place

If you can imagine such a place, steelman your argument then, try making it without a premise of shitty living conditions. Pick a convivial world, and make an antinatalist argument from that world. Does it still stand?

=======

Finally, the argument that says nonexistence might be better is literally vacuous: False implies True. Nonexistence therefore is trivially whatever you want it to be, but not In any meaningful sense.

In a society whose official ideology is that “There is No Alternative”, antinatalism is basically a dressed up version of “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.

It’s basically just lack of imagination. Doomerist defeatism.

LMDE 💕

Of course I agree that decentralization for social media is hugely important. I’m just pointing out that there can exist use cases where centralization makes sense and/or is not a problem.

Sure but I don’t think that makes it “decentralized” it makes it as you correctly point out, open source. Those are orthogonal categories.There aren’t parts of wikipedia that are hosted in other wikipedia instances that talk to each other the same way mastodon does. There is a unique, central, Wikipedia.

But once you download It, any changes you make are only local. You cannot edit wikipedia using a non-wikipedia account (sure you can edit anonymously but then your IP functions as your account) and the articles are not systematically stored in different wikipedia instances. There is one Wikipedia.

By the way, centralized doesn’t mean “walled off”.

Centralization on its own is not a deal breaker. Wikipedia is centralized.

Corporate/business ownership on it’s own is not a deal breaker. There are many business mastodon instances: https://mastodonservers.net/servers/business

It’s the combination that is a deal breaker. Corporate AND centralized. We’ve seen this movie before. It’s a predictably boring story that ends with enshittification.

Every Republican accusation is a confession: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Capitalists love interoperability when they can use it to disrupt other capitalists. When they get in a dominant position they hate it.

It’s basic enshittification theory.

Hello Paige Saunders! I’m a big fan you smarmy kiwi yimby.

I don’t understand. Does an instance hosted anywhere outside of this US backwater state have anything to fear from this? Why is Eugen being contacted all the way in Germany?

Brilliant

with grep I see all the alternatives, Ctl+R just shows me one

history | grep [the thing]

Streisand effect: the BBC is telling every last kid that VPN is exactly the way to circumvent the prohibition.

CS education is notoriously prone to boom-bust cycles.

Love this

Funny that when it was about protecting profits copyright was such a cornerstone principle but when it’s about protecting profits it can also be set aside.

An ecosocialist world would not allow wealth inequality to become this bad.

We don’t live in one. The challenge is to make one.

It’s a biological fact when resources are constrained that a population will plateu.

Mice and fleas don’t have medicine, feminism, research centres and agriculture. Look at the world around you. In societies with high degrees of scarcity and high infant mortality, humans have tended to have a lot of babies. This is true now, and it was true historically. On the flipside, in societies with high development indexes, humans tend to not have many kids. From Japan to Sweden to Cuba, you see that fertility rates inversely correlate with human development. These are just observable facts.