Bitcoins are an unlimited resource you can mine infinitely many of them. Both votes and bitcoins are raw resources that can be “mined” (earned) infinitely at a given rate by utilising the base resources time, compute, and internet.

U spend ur time compute internet and attention to earn votes that u spend on posts to affect the marketplace of ideas.

The fediverse is a perfect metaphor for a free market please explain how it isnt.

I dont expect perfect solutions thats why downvotes to solve the problems that blocking cant exists. Thx for proving my point

I hate saying i told u so but i told u so.

Lemmy is the ultimate embodiment of a free market. U dont think thats even a valid argument if that content is downvoted communities dedicated to it will be equally downvoted. Welcoming should not mean making the experience for the majority significantly worse simply to avoid a minority having to search a little harder.

Blocking communities doesnt work entirely since u end up with fat chicks and dicks in communities that arent specificly dedicated to either.

Supply demand is king either ignore the downvotes or find a new target market. I dont recon its worked at all its just means people will block the accounts meaning they are memory holed perminantly.

Well lemmy has a target market if ur not marketing to that market and feel discouraged thats just supply demand sending u a message. By disabling downvoted u are literally forcing shit people dont wanna see down their throats. I guess the solution is now just the liberal application of the block button.

If ur posting shit u don’t want to build a community on that. I recon they did it simply to push an agenda of unpopular crap that most people (on lemmy) dont wanna see ie dudes and fat chicks, they got downvoted for a reason. Now i guess everyone needs to get used to a liberal application of the block button.

Its not big tech unless they are abusing a monopoly.

The only vpn company id ever trust would be mulvad.

I wrote a script to generate seed phrases and look up if that derived into a key with any value. Then did the maths on how impossible that is and decided to stop.

Ur just training urself to have chatgpt’s bias. We will soon live in a world where you wont have to be exposed to opinions you disagree with. Tom Scott has a yt vid on why this is a bad idea.

Cos he want to control it

Yeah my banking app works but prime video doesnt

Except when they get caught using ur face in facial recognition for security cameras across the globe its without your consent and forces the courts to admit they illegally took ur face for recognition. Yoyr rights will be violated its just trying to make the job of the people who will have to go and fight for them back easyer

Hes gonna be the first one the ai kills and i look forward to it

The more i hear about twitter censoring shit the less i respect what elon has done. If he did what he said he would do great but unfortunatly i don’t see any of this free speach he allegedly loves.

Btw what was the exact link that twitter thinks is so dangerous?

Nothing wrong with being gay plenty wrong with wanting to fuck kids.

Removed by mod

So you’re a sociopath.

nope, we are currently disagreeing about the social contract hence proving we have different subjective understanding of what it includes. also calling someone a sociopath doesn’t seem like a good faith argument.

No, that would be a normal contract.

no shit Sherlock that would provide an objective contract thus solving the whole subjective issue.

No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by.

sure so laws are the objective part of the social contract a majority of people have agreed (people still disagree about what laws should be)

So you want to change the social contract.

that’s called an opinion ones uses them to shift the social contract to better fit their subjective viewpoint

The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power.

The marketplace of ideas in the conceptual gives every single person or organization an exactly equal level of power through the concept of free speech. I would argue lemmy has captured this ideal far better than anything yet by implementing censoring we destroy that equality we have sought to create. If fox’s ideas stop being supported/downvoted they fall out of the marketplace of ideas at which point they either adapt or die.

There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023.

absolutely we should let them speak and their ideas will be filtered by the marketplace.

Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?

Doesn’t the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints isn’t that the whole fucking point? Let people have an opinion and express that opinion as they wish. I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group) i will most certainly down-vote it and call you a fucking evil monster but I support your right to say it.

Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation.

That’s called good marketing

he should have that monopoly taken away from him.

Fox doesn’t have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for

They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers.

At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey. If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that’s how evolution works. its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow. If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage. Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.

Im sick of hearing about the fucking social contract this social contract that. The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective. I have no problwm calling u a cunt munching retard and have no proboem u call me the same or worse. I can say fucked shit to u and u can say fucked shit to me there are people who would say thats part of the social construct there are people who wouldnt. Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it (is that not what laws are?) its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.

Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society. There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest. There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint. To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.