Yes, there were a couple (less manipulated) news papers that drove popular opinion and it was easier to bury information. That part I‘m with you.
But the „mainstream discourse“ did not exist until the huge platforms came up. Germany didnt read the new york times and hans müller did not talk to john smith back then.
As I mentioned in another comment: yes, informarion spreads a lot faster and is practically unstoppable which is awesome. But nowadays you can bury it in disinformation. Especially without fact checkers, mods and using bot armies.
The initial point was that banning/blocking (users) is a great skill since we can exclude parties we deem unbecoming to our neighborhood. This is called freedom of association and a central pillar to the fediverse, which makes it crazy resilient.
I have silenced bigots who were undermining people saying trans rights arent human rights. This is the world I live in.
Sometimes I use another account and verbally beat up bigots. But in my daily life i surround myself with constructive content. You dont need to do the same but I can tell you it is very nice.
It just seems like you’re saying that things were better back then, because people had less ability to express themselves, but regardless of the logic about what affects what, they objectively weren’t better, and because of that your point doesn’t make sense to me.
I do see that you can only view it that way. I‘m sorry but thats nothing I can change.
I did say (and mean) that its great to be able to ban people from your feed because you dont want to hear their shit. Thats it. Yes, you can try to mental gymnastic that into „old is better“ but its not real. That just happens in your head.
Again, I love the fediverse and federation is awesome. But federation is not forced and that is called freedom of association. I dont need to talk to anyone, i dont need to listen to anyone. I can choose who to talk to.
Some people - i call them bigots - like to suggest that people need to listen to everything. That is bullshit. Its how brainwashing and gaslighting works. The reason we have issues with out current media is because you can be forced to listen/see stuff you dont want to. This is a dystopia if i have ever seen one.
Another misconception is that whatever political adversary chose to be radicalized and driven insane (think fascists and theocrats). Thats not the case. It is constant ingoring of their personal boundaries by bigots who tell them that god is their savior and immigrants are the enemy. If you take away that influence (or give people the choice to do it themaelves), they will come back to sanity.
Therefore, the fediverse is fantastic as it is. Banning, private instances, individual moderation or not, etc. Everyone who says different is either naive or a bigot.
We come from a time where there was no place for everyone to share their views, people were okay. They had their bubbles (they were called pubs) and read their newspaper.
I’m not sure how else to interpret that, seemed pretty straightforward, that your argument hinges on the idea that the internet allowing people to share their views made things worse, but feel free to clarify
yeah, no. I gave you plenty of additional info. I can relate to being stuck but thats not my problem. Read my text again. Try reading it without that passage and try learning that people think differently than you.
I dont think your point is valid.
Yes, there were a couple (less manipulated) news papers that drove popular opinion and it was easier to bury information. That part I‘m with you.
But the „mainstream discourse“ did not exist until the huge platforms came up. Germany didnt read the new york times and hans müller did not talk to john smith back then.
As I mentioned in another comment: yes, informarion spreads a lot faster and is practically unstoppable which is awesome. But nowadays you can bury it in disinformation. Especially without fact checkers, mods and using bot armies.
The initial point was that banning/blocking (users) is a great skill since we can exclude parties we deem unbecoming to our neighborhood. This is called freedom of association and a central pillar to the fediverse, which makes it crazy resilient.
I have silenced bigots who were undermining people saying trans rights arent human rights. This is the world I live in.
Sometimes I use another account and verbally beat up bigots. But in my daily life i surround myself with constructive content. You dont need to do the same but I can tell you it is very nice.
It just seems like you’re saying that things were better back then, because people had less ability to express themselves, but regardless of the logic about what affects what, they objectively weren’t better, and because of that your point doesn’t make sense to me.
I do see that you can only view it that way. I‘m sorry but thats nothing I can change.
I did say (and mean) that its great to be able to ban people from your feed because you dont want to hear their shit. Thats it. Yes, you can try to mental gymnastic that into „old is better“ but its not real. That just happens in your head.
Again, I love the fediverse and federation is awesome. But federation is not forced and that is called freedom of association. I dont need to talk to anyone, i dont need to listen to anyone. I can choose who to talk to.
Some people - i call them bigots - like to suggest that people need to listen to everything. That is bullshit. Its how brainwashing and gaslighting works. The reason we have issues with out current media is because you can be forced to listen/see stuff you dont want to. This is a dystopia if i have ever seen one.
Another misconception is that whatever political adversary chose to be radicalized and driven insane (think fascists and theocrats). Thats not the case. It is constant ingoring of their personal boundaries by bigots who tell them that god is their savior and immigrants are the enemy. If you take away that influence (or give people the choice to do it themaelves), they will come back to sanity.
Therefore, the fediverse is fantastic as it is. Banning, private instances, individual moderation or not, etc. Everyone who says different is either naive or a bigot.
I’m thinking mostly of when you said
I’m not sure how else to interpret that, seemed pretty straightforward, that your argument hinges on the idea that the internet allowing people to share their views made things worse, but feel free to clarify
yeah, no. I gave you plenty of additional info. I can relate to being stuck but thats not my problem. Read my text again. Try reading it without that passage and try learning that people think differently than you.
None of the things you were saying clarify the contradiction I’m talking about, but I can respect that you choose not to specifically address that.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but since you‘re just trying to be a smartass and a jerk, you get the boot. Byee.
Ok yeah, I got annoyed you kept trying to dance around the issue. You’re right I should still be more polite about it.