Please elaborate on how having a twitter account financially supports fascism. I’d think the opposite if used by the majority of people. I’m genuinely asking, not trying to start a fight.
The most simple, straightforward, and concise way is my least favorite word in the world: metrics. By using X, you increase the amount of activity on the platform, which the Muskrat takes to advertisers and investors and says “Look how many people use my platform, you should be paying me more money for access to the value they have as consumers/data to harvest.”
This is actually why they made that ad-blocker that clicks on every single ad it blocks that I can never remember the name of. Because it financially hurts both the company serving the ads and the advertisers themselves as well by both messing with their data on you as a consumer (they can’t add your interests to a group to sell to advertisers if you just click on everything) and by hurting their click-through to sales metric. Their click-through rate goes up, but because their purchase rate doesn’t, it makes the metric go down and makes them less willing to spend as much on an advertising spot when they’re less likely to get a return on that money.
There’s also that whole thing where people go where there’s a lot of people and by being part of the group that keeps people there, you’re exposing them to right-wing propaganda and the various disinformation bot campaigns and whatnot, but that’s a lot harder to explain/messier to get into.
That’s the reason I don’t do twitter and I restrain myself for many products.
But you know what they say “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism”.
It’s ok to boicot things to hurt them financially as far as you are able to. But let’s not demonize anyone who doesn’t carry the boicot as far as you can carry it, because that’s counter productive.
“there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism”.
The VPS hosting of every Lemmy instance is thus unethical. Mastodon is then unethical. Buying a gun to defend yourself and your home is then unethical. Buying a child food is then unethical.
Hard disagree. The issues of life are not so cut and dry.
I meant that everything you buy in a capitalist world is putting money in hands of bad people.
You buy baby food from nestle and you are giving money to terrible people.
What I implied in the post, is that that doesn’t make you a bad person. You need to live, and most importantly, you have right to enjoy your life. That would inevitably lead to giving money to bad people.
Here a corporation, Mozilla, is using a service from a bad person, twitter. Are they as bad because of it? I don’t think so. There are other people, like Bernie Sanders, who still have an active twitter account. They are doing consumption that profits bad people, but in a capitalist economy that is inevitable. Thus I don’t think the consumption of something should be the sole factor judging the ethics of a person.
We live in a society where is very hard or sometimes impossible to avoid it. Here, Mozilla or Bernie Sanders, haven’t found another social network with enough userbase for their communication purposes. I personally don’t agree with their choice, But I won’t call them fash for making that choice. Because I know how limited consumption offers are in a capitalist world.
That’s ok. I’m all for criticize mozilla for all the questionable shit they are doing lately. Either to achieve a change on them or to promote an alternative.
I’m just agaist calling fascist people that have not shown that they are indeed fascist.
Being fascist is something very very bad. For instance, to my view, violence against fascism is justified, that’s why I really try to distinguish who is actually fascist, and who is just not actively fighting them.
To be fair, there’s plenty of things you can forego with no cost or negative cost. This isn’t like having to buy food at a grocery store. So while you can’t use the internet ethically, you can make ethical choices about which websites you visit.
But I understand that different people have different needs. A company or a politician might need reach. They are not just someone having fun online. For them is their business.
I actually think is a bad choice, because they would have better public elsewhere. But a wrong decision like that would make them just wrong, not fascist.
OK so we agree that Firefox could forego X with no or negative cost, but we’re cool with them doing it anyways because they have no choice, except in this case where they totally do.
Not every person on Twitter is a fascist.
But every person on Twitter supports fascists. Very literally. In a financial sense.
Please elaborate on how having a twitter account financially supports fascism. I’d think the opposite if used by the majority of people. I’m genuinely asking, not trying to start a fight.
The most simple, straightforward, and concise way is my least favorite word in the world: metrics. By using X, you increase the amount of activity on the platform, which the Muskrat takes to advertisers and investors and says “Look how many people use my platform, you should be paying me more money for access to the value they have as consumers/data to harvest.”
This is actually why they made that ad-blocker that clicks on every single ad it blocks that I can never remember the name of. Because it financially hurts both the company serving the ads and the advertisers themselves as well by both messing with their data on you as a consumer (they can’t add your interests to a group to sell to advertisers if you just click on everything) and by hurting their click-through to sales metric. Their click-through rate goes up, but because their purchase rate doesn’t, it makes the metric go down and makes them less willing to spend as much on an advertising spot when they’re less likely to get a return on that money.
There’s also that whole thing where people go where there’s a lot of people and by being part of the group that keeps people there, you’re exposing them to right-wing propaganda and the various disinformation bot campaigns and whatnot, but that’s a lot harder to explain/messier to get into.
Ah, thanks! That was very easy to understand!
Higher MAU = More companies buying advertisements = supporting twitter
Its about Musk having control of a major social platform. Just think about the implications an evil person can do i.e. mark Zuckerberg except richer
I won’t argue that.
That’s the reason I don’t do twitter and I restrain myself for many products.
But you know what they say “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism”.
It’s ok to boicot things to hurt them financially as far as you are able to. But let’s not demonize anyone who doesn’t carry the boicot as far as you can carry it, because that’s counter productive.
The VPS hosting of every Lemmy instance is thus unethical. Mastodon is then unethical. Buying a gun to defend yourself and your home is then unethical. Buying a child food is then unethical.
Hard disagree. The issues of life are not so cut and dry.
Fuck Twitter tho.
I meant that everything you buy in a capitalist world is putting money in hands of bad people.
You buy baby food from nestle and you are giving money to terrible people.
What I implied in the post, is that that doesn’t make you a bad person. You need to live, and most importantly, you have right to enjoy your life. That would inevitably lead to giving money to bad people.
Here a corporation, Mozilla, is using a service from a bad person, twitter. Are they as bad because of it? I don’t think so. There are other people, like Bernie Sanders, who still have an active twitter account. They are doing consumption that profits bad people, but in a capitalist economy that is inevitable. Thus I don’t think the consumption of something should be the sole factor judging the ethics of a person.
We live in a society where is very hard or sometimes impossible to avoid it. Here, Mozilla or Bernie Sanders, haven’t found another social network with enough userbase for their communication purposes. I personally don’t agree with their choice, But I won’t call them fash for making that choice. Because I know how limited consumption offers are in a capitalist world.
Yeah but we don’t need to defend corps that support fascists either.
That’s ok. I’m all for criticize mozilla for all the questionable shit they are doing lately. Either to achieve a change on them or to promote an alternative.
I’m just agaist calling fascist people that have not shown that they are indeed fascist.
Being fascist is something very very bad. For instance, to my view, violence against fascism is justified, that’s why I really try to distinguish who is actually fascist, and who is just not actively fighting them.
I would argue that their board of directors, or whatever it’s called, is fash-leaning… kinda goes with the territory. Mozilla at large, probably not.
To be fair, there’s plenty of things you can forego with no cost or negative cost. This isn’t like having to buy food at a grocery store. So while you can’t use the internet ethically, you can make ethical choices about which websites you visit.
That’s why I don’t go on twitter or reddit.
But I understand that different people have different needs. A company or a politician might need reach. They are not just someone having fun online. For them is their business.
I actually think is a bad choice, because they would have better public elsewhere. But a wrong decision like that would make them just wrong, not fascist.
OK so we agree that Firefox could forego X with no or negative cost, but we’re cool with them doing it anyways because they have no choice, except in this case where they totally do.
Yes, totally agree with that. Firefox userbase is precisely one that could be more prevalent in mastodon than in twitter.