Victim of Communism

  • 20 Posts
  • 1.86K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • I hate to watch the internet die for 2 decades now.

    That’s not what “dying” looks like. That’s “mutating”, in the horror movie sense.

    Why do people watch these turds? Who cares what some “influencer” does? It’s all fake anyway.

    I mean, YMMV. Lots of people don’t watch them. Lots of people just kinda flip through what’s on their feed and land on whatever catches their eyes. Lots of people get this stuff jammed down their throats through different flavors of marketing, engagement, and native-ized slop.

    And this is where people “get information”? How about Wikipedia?

    Wikipedia isn’t where people naturally go for fashion tips and entertainment promos.

    I really think a lot of this boils down to “I’ve completely forgotten what it’s like to be a teenager”. Young people trying to act like old people. Old people trying to act like young people. A lot of it boiling down to hormones, boredem, and Freemium ad-slop being the entertainment they can afford.










  • Sort of the joke in this. Crime in western countries has declined as police hyper-surveillance has increased. I don’t think it is unfair to say that a suffocating perpetual dragnet created by a public-private Big Brother network has contributed to depressed rates of stochastic violence. Or that the few groups capable of committing crimes and getting away with it are the police and sheriffs offices, the individuals in their employment, and the turncoats they use to influence and infiltrate other groups.

    We don’t count “preemptively solved crimes”, unless we’re trying to make headlines with “foiled assassination/terrorist plot” to inflate some bureaucrat’s reputation. We also don’t count false positives - people who had their doors kicked in and their family roughed up and their dog shot in the dead of night - when we’re tallying police effectiveness. Out of sight, out of mind.

    The only thing we really see is active shooters on the evening news and burglary footage on the local. So we’re always having a “crime problem”. The current police state is never big enough. Surveillance isn’t “real” enough to impact the news cycle, because something is always happening somewhere that can be reported on as the next big Crime Wave.





  • Well, unfortunately, there is no project like that with Wikipedia’s critical mass. Most attempts with any attention are rather horrific. See: Grokipedia.

    Idk if you even want the kind of attention Wikipedia achieved, given how it ultimately became the target of endless waves of scams and influencer operations.

    That said, the Wiki format has been prolific in a way even the core website has not been. The core data for Wikipedia has been harvested and replicated across a thousand different boutique iterations. A lot of what made things like Grokipedia and Conservapedia and the rest flop is that these projects tried to administer the sites even more tightly than the original. And it’s an enormous project, so that loads a phenomenal amount of work on a handful of people.

    If Wikipedia dies, nothing good will replace it.

    That’s an absurd presumption. Just straight off the bat, you have the old Encyclopedia Britannica. You’ve got dozens of alternative Wiki competitors with their own rarified communities of editors and contributors. You’ve got subject-specific Wikis for a thousand different fandoms, hobbies, and crafts. You’ve got physical libraries. You’ve got digital libraries. You’ve got LLM compositions of libraries.

    The biggest flaw most of these have is the same one any search engine after Google had. “Why would I go here if I can just go to Wikipedia instead?”

    But the idea that tens of millions of curious people and subject-experts are just going to endure a vacuum? Come on.

    Wikipedia is valuable because its a reasonably sane default reference for billions of people

    It’s a very English-language and Euro-History oriented source of truth for tens of millions of online nerds. If it gets subsumed or shut down or otherwise undermined by western-aligned governments, I might suggest that the problem will not be an absence of Wikipedia but the presence of a malignant surveillance-enabled censorship bureaucracy.

    What you will experience is not a lack of oxygen but a surplus of boot on your neck.


  • Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.

    It pioneered a novel mechanism for collaborating on a project with minimal trust between contributors. But it was also riddled with bias and vulnerable to exploitation and as prone to cultivating disinformation as a universal source of truth.

    Rather than fixating on the site as some last bastion of Web 1.0 nostalgia, we would do well to do better than Wikipedia.

    Organizations like the Internet archive project have, imho, done as much or more than Wikipedia because of their commitment to accumulating primary source material. Managing that catalog and incorporating it into an encyclopedia of knowledge is much more than just stuffing a hard drive full of editor arguments and dead links from the old site.






  • critical thinking is an old paradigm that most of humanity is unwilling to interact with

    Critical thinking is a mechanism for digesting large amounts of information over time, in order to make informed policy decisions.

    If you don’t have useful information, you don’t have spare time, and you don’t have any actual input into policy, it lacks value.

    I see folks consistently trying to make this an individualist problem. “I figured it out because I think critical! You didn’t because you’re a dumb-dumb!”

    But more often than not, it’s two people talking past each other, working off different bodies of data (of debatable quality) that they’ve incompletely digested. And then all they know how to do with their conclusions is yell “You’re an idiot!” at people who disagree.

    How do you reach large numbers of people to form a consensus? How do you collaborate with them towards a tangible benefit?

    Curiously enough, Facebook used to provide a mechanism for this purpose. And the fact that it doesn’t anymore - that it is largely a trap for weak, confused, vulnerable people to scream at one another while they get scammed - speaks more to the profit engine of the service than the core competency of any of its members