Friend of mine who’d been in the room for bone surgeries said it was basically just carpentry. All saws, drills & screws.

https://lemmy.world/post/1853818

Lemmy uses pretty standard markdown, so this works in lots of forums besides lemmy.

As you wish.

I came here looking for it, so I may as well follow through on the prompt.

I would expect in that case “hell” is just a lie anyway, like an abuser telling you you can’t live without them. It’s classic controlling behaviour.

Realising that helped me walk away from the whole thing: Why are we told hell exists if it isn’t real? Control.

I’m not going to get a meaningful exchange with you, I can already tell. I think I made that pretty clear, as well as my reasons. Your reply is empty of anything but a very unsubtle attempt at emotional manipulation, so I’d say I’ve made the right call.

It’s not about force or having authority to define something, this is about being able to have a real conversation, and you left the main term undefined except in your own mind, and then when I asked you for it you gave an absolutely wild definition that makes no sense and which I can’t find anybody else using, and yet you still called it “the” definition and not “your” definition.

If nothing else that means you’re not someone it’s worth trying to talk to, because you’re not even trying to communicate effectively. I don’t care if you have your reasons, they’re not good reasons but I feel like in the spirit of this conversation I just shouldn’t fucking bother to explain why, because based on precedent you’ll just insist I’m wrong for your own inscrutable reasons and carry on as you were, and if I try to wrest those reasons out of you they’ll be nonsensical. Also you’re not worth trying to convince because you’re not somebody anyone else will listen to for long before they realise you’re completely full of shit.

Goodbye.

That definition of authority is so immediately, obviously wrong that I don’t even know where to start dealing with it.

It’s so uselessly broad. I literally said at the start that authority isn’t just any inqeuality, and you didn’t address it. You should have if you thought that was wrong, because that’s literally the definition of the thing that we’re talking about.

I would like to see you justify this incrsdibly broad definition. If you want to see my justification for my definition, I would invite you to look it up in any dictionary.

I need you to define the word “authority” in that case. I’ve given my definition, so what is yours and how does it differ, please? Because I already addressed the fact that an imbalance doesn’t create a hierarchy, and your description of imbalance does not fit my definition of authority.

Power imbalance doesn’t automatically create the conditions for domination. For that you would need both expertise and monopoly.

And the solution to a misunderstanding isn’t to concede the definition of the word “state” but to educate. The state is any entity that has a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in a region. That applies regardless of the system of government that rules it.

Your definition isn’t a definition, it’s just a collection of categories that gives no useful information.

We don’t need to be dominated in order to clean up our garbage. And the state is often really bad at collecting garbage, so just teach people that.

I honestly hate the concept of “bootmaker authority”, because it’s exactly the same wrong conflation that Engels makes. Not every inequality is a form of authority. Expertise is not authority, it is expertise.

Authority is the socially-recognised power to dominate. Getting a bootmaker to advise on or perform bootmaking tasks is not domination. The bootmaker can’t hold you at gunpoint and command you to wear a certain kind of boot, nobody would allow that. There aren’t bootmaking cops.

Like what exactly does the bootmaker’s “authority” entail in this theory? Giving consent does not confer authority. Authority operates regardless of consent, that’s what makes it bad.

Some of them will actively advocate for user-unfriendliness to keep out the noobs which… I mean the number of psy-ops in the community has to be non-zero.

It’s just really weird that you turn to profit motive as a benefit when we’re talking about systems that tend to enshittify, and that’s like, the main thing that makes them enshittify.

My argument is about how enshittification destroys platforms, and platforms that don’t do that will retain their growth. Bluesky has all the ingredients to enshittify, mastodon doesn’t.

Yes they need to work on their onboarding, but unlike bluesky, they can keep going at it till it sticks. Centralised platforms get a launch, and a lifecycle, and then they tend to go away.

Quite literally the opposite of what you said. If a platform is central, it can be switched off tomorrow. Nobody can do that to the fediverse as long as the internet exists. The idea that hobbyists are somehow less reliable than fucking corporations is also absurd. Have you met corporations?

This is literally a tortoise-and-the-hare situation.

If you can explain the existence of wikipedia under your theory then I’ll listen to you, but like… wow. Profit motive, what a joke. That’s literally what causes enshittification.

Oh, I didn’t realise the technical barriers were that steep. In that case I think I’m right to say that Mastodon is technically better for achieving the decentralisation it promises.

That’s a great resource, I’m going to follow them. Plus the link to Spritely was really interesting. Looks like it’s meant to be a successor to ActivityPub, which is quite exciting. From what I’ve seen activity pub is pretty limited in the ways it can enable interaction, like how mastodon posts look so funky on lemmy.

Plus, holy web 1.0, that’s a motherfucking website.

Right, my point is that they have the ingredients to meaningfully decentralise control, but until they do they are not meaningfully bettee than twitter, and it’s just a branding exercise.

Maybe they’ll fix that, maybe they won’t but until they do I think the fediverse’s resilience proves that platforms will keep turning over until a viable federated system arises, whether that’s bluesky, mastodon or something else.

I can’t even see where you disagree with this. You’re just throwing out details withoit reference to how this affects my point.

It doesn’t matter how distributed the servers are. You could say any centralised platform is “distributed” if it has at least one redundant server, which plenty of them do. Youtube has servers all over the world. That has nothing to do with enshittification and it’s not the feature I was talking about.

The thing that supposedly set bluesky apart was that they would be using a decentralised protocol that allowed anyone who wanted to to operate their own server with full control over their data. You can actually see some people posting from different domains.

That’s a nice idea and it trades on the rising popularity of the fediverse, but it’s not doing it in an open manner because the software isn’t open and separate instances are locked to 10 users maximum unless the central authority allows them more. That means it’s not meaningfully decentralised, but it’s still trying to capitalise on the concept. It can still be torpedoed by one company’s bad business decisions.

That’s what I was referring to.

And I said mastodon might be able to take in the exodus if they improve, so I guess I agree with your last point.

By “technically better” I mean it actually delivers on its technical promises of decentralisation, as opposed to bluesky that simply uses decentralisation as a buzzword without being actually open source and without allowing real competition for the main - centralised - instance.

I think mastodon has actual legs in that if bluesky fails to actually open up, it will enshittify and there will be another exodus. Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem, so it will still be there to pick up the pieces. The decentralised nature protects the network from enshittifying and means it will tend not to get exoduses like central platforms do. It’s a matter of making that growth count.

If in that time mastodon has worked on its discovery features, it might be finally ready to capture that growth.

If bluesky manages to properly decentralise then I imagine mastodon will not need to pick up the slack and will either join the network or fade into irrelevancy.

Hard to say which way it will go. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for bluesky changing its ways, and who knows when mastodon will improve in this way.

Yes, exactly this. Like something might be technically better but unless it’s doing its main job of actually connecting people it’s not going to work.

I wish more FOSS nerds understood this.

No worries lol.

I was more referring to the fact that they were very ready to say how they’d kill for it but the price was the thing stopping them. The maths is pretty easy but I think 3 people didn’t get the joke.

Thanks! Looks like on the talk page there’s doubt about whether it even has a touchscreen, which is a little discouraging. I guess I can just try, but It’s good to know a resource like this exists.