No, but if I were running twitter and was one of the world's richest people, that's a box of TNT that's on fire. You don't stick around to toast marshmallows, you run like hell.
as far as I can tell blender is still hot garbage, so yeah it's funny because it used to be even worse.
But ffs even running an instance isn't that hard.
But ffs even running an instance isn't that hard.
If you want a big tech daddy knows best censored experience, stay on big tech. Jesus why would you ever go to a distributed free and open source platform expecting everyone to be walking on eggshells as if they were going to get banned at any second for wrongthink? #feditips
I know what you're saying, but it seems to me that by creating structures that allow things to grow to be so extraordinarily large and to let individual people become so extraordinarily powerful you end up with a sort of reality warping where the working man's wages are garnished and those tax dollars are often placed directly into the pockets of some megacorp with unlimited donor bucks.
The real world creates limits to things. Nations can only become so big. Cities can only become so big. Creatures can only become so big. After a point, the pressures against growing start to outweigh the pressure to grow and there's an equilibrium.
Creating an immortal and faceless corporation that makes the creator of that corporation largely blameless for anything that happens in it to a certain point bypasses many of the limitations nature puts on things. Eventually rich people die and they split their fortune among their descendants for example. If individuals are held to account for the consequences of their machinations then that seems like a reasonable limiter.
And if we realize that we can't get anything done because there's too many forms of liability out there, maybe then the incentive will be to chill out a bit. Why should the owner of a megacorp get more protection from such things than a regular person? Just make everyone more free instead of having a loophole to deal with the crippling regulation.
The real world creates limits to things. Nations can only become so big. Cities can only become so big. Creatures can only become so big. After a point, the pressures against growing start to outweigh the pressure to grow and there's an equilibrium.
Creating an immortal and faceless corporation that makes the creator of that corporation largely blameless for anything that happens in it to a certain point bypasses many of the limitations nature puts on things. Eventually rich people die and they split their fortune among their descendants for example. If individuals are held to account for the consequences of their machinations then that seems like a reasonable limiter.
And if we realize that we can't get anything done because there's too many forms of liability out there, maybe then the incentive will be to chill out a bit. Why should the owner of a megacorp get more protection from such things than a regular person? Just make everyone more free instead of having a loophole to deal with the crippling regulation.
The problem with limiting liability is that it means you can get overwhelmingly massive and there's no personal risk to you. If a person has to worry about whether someone is doing something in their name then they've got a good reason to be more careful and limit their growth to what they can personally control since they could lose everything.
I think that the litigiousness is a direct consequence of this: The culture is these megacorporations that can't drain shareholders of anything but the money they've invested, and they don't manage risk because of that, so the lawsuits fly easily and often because the companies are huge enough to have tons of money to pay out and reckless enough that they're making stupid enough mistakes to have to pay out!
Then like bad parts of other cultures, it bleeds into everyday life, and suddenly you've got million dollar lawsuits for nothing between individual people, and then people need millions of dollars of liability insurance just in case, which drives more money and power into the hands of megacorporations.
I think that the litigiousness is a direct consequence of this: The culture is these megacorporations that can't drain shareholders of anything but the money they've invested, and they don't manage risk because of that, so the lawsuits fly easily and often because the companies are huge enough to have tons of money to pay out and reckless enough that they're making stupid enough mistakes to have to pay out!
Then like bad parts of other cultures, it bleeds into everyday life, and suddenly you've got million dollar lawsuits for nothing between individual people, and then people need millions of dollars of liability insurance just in case, which drives more money and power into the hands of megacorporations.
You think you do, but wait until you've got a small kingdom's worth of dry dog food. "It was on sale!" we don't even have a dog wtf lady...
You're right, I thought the history of such things previously seemed to start much later around the 1600s, but the romans recognised it in the 6th century BC. Maybe it looked that way to me because that's when they started to be publicly traded on exchanges?
I sort of hope you're right, tbh. I don't want or need the fediverse to become yet another oversaturated thing that everyone is using and suddenly everyone needs to control for our own protection.
It's all still capital, it's just that it belongs to a person instead of a legal homonculus. Capital equipment doesn't need to be a mile long factory, it can be simple hand tools, or automated CNC or 3d printing machines, or servers. From there, it could become more as a person accomplishes more. Even people can be considered capital. A skilled person can take things that are worthless and make them valuable.
Corporations are a government construct. They don't exist in nature and didn't exist in economies until relatively recently. Their unnatural existence twists the real world.
Corporations are a government construct. They don't exist in nature and didn't exist in economies until relatively recently. Their unnatural existence twists the real world.
Capitalism is usually defined as the private ownership and control of capital, as opposed to cooperative or state ownership and control of capital.
In my view, you don't need corporations to have capitalism. One of my more radical views is that we should get rid of corporations entirely, and then the owner of a thing would be personally responsible when their thing breaks things or people or the environment instead of letting a legal picture of Dorian Grey take the heat.
In my view, you don't need corporations to have capitalism. One of my more radical views is that we should get rid of corporations entirely, and then the owner of a thing would be personally responsible when their thing breaks things or people or the environment instead of letting a legal picture of Dorian Grey take the heat.
I don't know that being against billionaires and corporations is
necessarily anticapitalism (private control of capital is what gives us the freedom to create our own websites), but besides that point I agree with everything you've written.
These megacorps have gotten too big for their britches, and they've forgotten we don't actually need them.
necessarily anticapitalism (private control of capital is what gives us the freedom to create our own websites), but besides that point I agree with everything you've written.
These megacorps have gotten too big for their britches, and they've forgotten we don't actually need them.
I've found that a big part of which stuff I use comes down to how easily I can get it set up. Some software looks really nice but God help you if you want to set it up because the manual won't.
A good software engineer can easily find another job. I'm not convinced thousands of people crawling all over twitter are necessarily good.
I'm chomping at the bit for 3.0 full. (Don't really know why, not sure if there's any new features or anything, but higher numbers = more better, right?)