Anomander

I’m always so torn on him; he makes interesting videos about compelling topics that are reasonably well researched … but as nitpicky as it is, I cannot deal with his accent for very long. I’m completely willing to believe it’s actually genuine, but it sounds like an American doing a bad impression of a posh British lordling.

my family can euthanize me even if I object?

No.

There’s no law that allows killing of the unwilling; even a living will addressing assisted suicide or euthanization due to incapability assumes that you would still consent at the later date, but lack either physical or intellectual ability to communicate that. If you can clearly communicate that you’ve changed your mind, they have to respect that, even if that changed mind has reduced capability due to dementia.

Your best hope would be to go with assisted suicide while you still have enough faculties to make the decision and execute on your portions of the act.

Also, on the subject of this song being “breakout/viral” - how hard is it to manipulate streaming numbers?

It’s seemed like the numbers there are 'semi-'manipulated in the way that Kpop can be - hugely inflated by deliberate rewatching and multi-platform streaming, but by individuals who genuinely want the song to do well, rather than bots or purchased fake stats.

It’s really seemed like ‘the right’ sees Oliver Anthony as “their guy” and rallied behind him and his song in order to push it up the charts as an imagined way of ‘owning the libs’ - and I think OA’s industry backing worked hard to seed that narrative among those circles in order to elicit that sort of boosterism from them.

This would make excellent satire, but it’s pretty dismal journalism.

Ever since that day, I’ve consistently correlated success with the fluctuating number in my follower count. In fact, I would argue that every millennial who works on the internet has internalized the belief that resonance on Twitter is the only way to unlock progressively more illustrious opportunities—it somehow seems more relevant than your degree, your scoops, and even your endorsements.

Speak for yourself, please.

Many millennials who ‘work on the internet’ have understood in the past that Twitter follower counts did constitute a sort of abstracted measure of relevance, like pop culture equivalent of how often an academic article is cited by other academics. There was quite a while where that was, unfortunately, true: for example, your measure as a PR professional was tied to your ability to use your professional skills to boost your personal accounts. It was far from the only thing that counted, but it was certainly an excellent networking tool and having impressive high scores would result in more opportunities, better opportunities, and less hunting for them. There absolutely was an expectation that communications or marketing people would leverage their skills for their accounts, that they would show off what they could do for potential employers within the confines of their own internet footprint.

You could still get work without that, I still got work without that - but work would come to you if you had an impressive social portfolio, not just on raw follower counts but on things like content and engagement as well. The total sum of your social media and online presence was the portfolio of communications or media field, same way designers are asked to provide examples of past work.

And that’s still true - it’s just less and less likely to include someone’s twitter in that assessment.

I think that’s why Elon’s reign of terror has been so bitterly ironic: Everything we’ve been taught about Twitter—and, frankly, social media in general—has proven to be an enormous lie. It was always volatile, and regrettably, we made it the locus of our careers.

Things can be true in the past and false in the present. What this particular person was taught in the past was true at the time of teaching. And then this crazy thing called “change” occurred and it’s no longer true. Except, what he was taught - that conventional wisdom holds that journalists need their own personal brands - remains true. The secondary coaching, that a Twitter presence is part of that branding, is not necessarily true but also not abstractly false either.

That the author struggles with the very concept of change, feels they were promised that Twitter would be permanent, and seems to believe that people who are successful now because of twitter activity then are somehow going to wind up on the streets is hilarious, if perhaps in a not particularly kind way.

Everyone he talked to has a secure career or market position. Sure, they got there via twitter, or they feel twitter helped them achieve that - but they will be fine. Some of them might take earnings hits or need to make some uncomfortable pivots to off-twitter platforms, but none of those folks are teetering on the edge of a cardboard mansion lifestyle after sinking clearly-fruitless hours into twitter boosterism.

Lorenz predicts something of a “Great Clout Reset” on the horizon—everyone emerging from the rubble, starting over at square one—and frankly, she can’t wait to see what happens. […] Maybe that’s the silver lining. Twitter might be dying, but maybe afterwards, we can try to become superstars all over again.

Oh look, we can see how the author wound up thinking that Twitter was all-important and utterly permanent. They’re doing it all over again; and in ten years we’ll get the exact same article about whatever platform they think is actually the Real Deal right now, complaining about how it inevitably failed and Lorenz steered them wrong with bad career tips.

Tumblr remains impressively Not Dead given its ownership and finance history.

My comment was clearly not written to give you advice for your specific child and her suite of issues.

I’m speaking a lot more generally and while I’m leaving room for parents like you to make your choices, I’m also still being direct that I think it’s not a good universal rule. Even if that is an outcome someone chooses, it’s no less true that engaging with the whole choice is necessary to do a good job of making it. Internet=bad is an incredibly simplistic old-person take at this stage in society, and some parents even to current generations can misunderstand or underestimate the significant role that the internet can play in their kids’ lives. No solution fits across all kids, that’s part of the challenge - but understanding the role that the internet plays in modern kids’ social world and peer networks is important to making decisions about their access to it with complete information and goal-oriented integrity.

The matched point in that comment you may have missed is that I’m not modelling my remarks around a binary of “unrestricted internet” vs “no internet.” If anything, I think I was clearly saying that absolute ‘solutions’ get progressively worse the wider they cast their net - as more and more unintended consequences are included in that broad-reaching choice.

Separately, you also shouldn’t expect that what you felt you needed to do in order to support your child in a relatively unusual situation - will also be a good foundation for broad-case parenting practices. What is good for one child is not good for all children - and the more unusual the child or their needs, the less applicable that solution would be to “average” kids. There are other kids in similar-looking situations where your solution would exacerbate the problem instead of reduce it - now not only are they depressed and bullied, but also isolated from their friends. The vast majority of kids aren’t in situations particularly similar to yours and using your solution in their cases risks putting them into worse places than they started, or putting a target on them where none existed prior. Sever the child from the internet isn’t something you necessarily should be treating as universally good for all parents and all kids with zero possible downsides.

There are always downsides. Especially in parenting, everything is a trade-off and nothing is clear-cut. If you can’t see what’s being traded off - in effectively anything - that’s a good cue to start hunting for blind spots. Especially when making rules for kids like cutting off parts of their world. As you said, being a parent requires making tough choices, and that requires engaging with the whole cost/benefit of the choice.

There’s nothing challenging or tough about firmly believing you are wholly, completely, and absolutely Correct in whatever option you pick. It’s easy to choose something and insist that it’s 100% totally and absolutely correct with zero room for discussion. That approach actively shuts down all the actually hard parts of making the choice. But that is a choice with it’s own downsides. It makes it hard to relate to those kids as they age enough to challenge you, or start leaving home, and it doesn’t model behavior that I - personally - think is producing functional adults down the road. At the very least, the kind of person who is never wrong is not the kind of person I want to raise.

So I think that commenting more specifically on what you’ve said here - it rings some bells and tints some flags. You’re proudly teaching your kids critical thinking, yet also say you cannot see any downsides to cutting off social media completely. You’re absolutely blase about deeming all kids who use social media “toxic” and “bad friends” with “struggles” as if it’s completely normal, healthy, and definitely non-toxic for an adult to be passing those kind of judgements about children on such a trivial basis, and to model that for their own kids. You talk about one child’s needs to justify the choice, but have more than that one affected by it. You reacted as if this is already a hot-button issue to you - and responded to remarks clearly speaking generally and not at all targeting to you as if it was a personal attack, returning fire with a bunch of spicy jibes about me as a person and as a parent. If this is how you experience and respond to an opinion you disagree with on the internet, I can certainly imagine how you deal with faintest hints of dispute from your own children. Of course they’re telling you what you want to hear.

The calls are coming from inside the house, friend.

I think maybe some of that is on me; I’ve been using “in power” somewhat colloquially and to me there’s a gap between ‘gaining power’ in a soft sense referring to achieving a station that possesses power - and complete seizure of power. The latter is always the goal of the former, but the former is generally a necessary intermediary step.

It seems to me that the current crop of neo-fascist (or fascist-adjacent as you call them) leaders have remained in power for a very long time, even with more or less fair elections. Erdogan in Turkey, Netenyahu in Israel, and Orban in Hungary come to mine.

Those three for sure have held power quite a while - just that they’ve held power long enough I don’t really consider them representative of modern neo-fascism so much as inspirations for it. In the sense I was thinking of when I wrote the above, I was thinking more of the factions and leaders that exist within states that are not clearly semi- or pseudo-fascist in their structure. The ways that Erdogan, Netenyahu, and Orban maintain their power are not yet in place in those other states, but implementing some forms of them are goals within those movements.

The neo-fascists’ I was talking about have to win elections and hold legitimate power within the current structure of the state before they can alter that structure enough to fix elections or bypass them. And in getting that initial foot in door, creating the opportunity to hijack the state, benefits strongly from using populist rhetoric - as genuinely pro-fascist voters are relatively rare, those factions and leaders need to use other causes to win over voters who wouldn’t support their “real” goals directly.

I think that this is like wrapping a kid in bubble-wrap, though. And like, not in that “over-coddling” metaphorical sense, but much more literal - sure, the kid can’t get scrapes if they fall off their bike, but the other kids are going to make fun of the kid wearing bubble wrap.

You don’t necessarily want to give them an unrestricted mainline to the worst of the internet, but you don’t want to overcorrect so hard that you’re causing other problems.

As toxic as it is, as much as there’s space for harms and bullying, or that the internet holds porn and violent content … the internet and social media spaces are where a huge portion of kids social lives live, and barring them from participating in that will do one of two things - teach them to get sneaky in order to bypass the restriction, or force them into an ‘outsider’ role in their peer group. In the first, it’s a lost cause and all you’re doing is making it inconvenient without addressing the harms - and ensuring they can’t talk to you about what comes from that space. In the latter, there are strong social and self-esteem costs associated with excluding your child from having a social life with other children - is it “better” for the parent to do the harm instead of the other children? Is it better for your relationship with that child, long-term, their trust in you, or your ability to support them?

The kid restricted to “dumb phone only, no internet, no apps” is the current generations’ equivalent of that one kid that wasn’t allowed to go to the park, or the mall, or hang out on the street - whatever any given past generation used as their youthful Third Place, where they could socialize and hang out separate from school and without adults actively supervising them. And it’s never been great for the kid whose parents won’t let them participate in the common social life that their peers have.

It’s far more fruitful to give them age-appropriate education related to their use of and relationship with the internet and provide a controlled and supported introduction than it is to simply bar their access for several years. You’re either stunting their social development in order to avoid harms to their social development (?!?!) or you’re simply winding the proverbial rubber band tighter and tighter against an inevitable rebellion - at which point they’re jumping in headlong without ever developing any sort of media literacy or social media savvy and never had a chance to build coping and resilience for whatever rabbit holes they’re likely to fall into .

Absolutely, I’m gobsmacked nobody seems to read history.

Although, a lot of these nowadays fascist leaders are being supported by very large swathes of their own populations, as much as 48%, which is the truly shocking thing.

Reading history … that tends to be how it works. Fascism is good at getting popular support for it’s ideas, without overtly being fascism to the people who support it. Fascism’s gateway drug is populism, and populism works best when the ‘common’ population is under strain too complex to address as a single issue.

The worlds ongoing climate crises, economic issues, and political instability within developing economies are all placing unusual and complicated strains on the common populations of developed nations - which in turn opens the door for populist rhetoric and leaders to thrive and gain a foothold on the political discourses in their nations. The biggest single pro/con of populist rhetoric is that it is at its strongest as challenger or as opposition - much like armchair quarterbacking, it’s very easy to criticize what has been done, and even easier to sound like you could do it better, but very hard to deliver on promises from the drivers’ seat. As a result, populism is good for getting elected, but is not good for staying there - or getting re-elected later.

So given that many populist talking points in current economies are fascist-adjacent, pivoting towards fascism makes for an easy and natural segue in the event that they gain power or hold sufficient security of position and supporter base that populism alone cannot serve to maintain.

I keep mine next to my tiger-repellent rock!

And no one is surprised.

Elon made it clear shortly after taking over that “free speech” was speech he happened to agree with, and he had no intentions of ethical consistency on ‘free speech’ when it came to speech that was critical of him or his platform. Twitter already went nuclear on links to Mastadon and similar alternative platforms earlier this year while their dumpster fire was raging.

So “transition treatments” have gone up 4000% … in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.

Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didn’t have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.

That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatment’s very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.

You’re aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.

All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it’s not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and “nuanced understanding” - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.

You’re doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.

You can call them whatever you want. You don’t get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don’t get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.

Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.

I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I’m going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.

Those guys are the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS”.

They just understand that pretending that they’re not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they’d like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” so the “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” dress up as the people you’re currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you’re trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn’t want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they’re not with the nazis anymore. You’re staying still while trying to defend that decision.

The “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” don’t dress up in SS Uniforms and ‘heil’ each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they’re “on to” something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.

I’m not ‘playing semantics’ - I’m not even engaging with yours.

We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until “ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS” aren’t actually nazis anymore. Either you’re a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of “nazi” - or you’re actually on their side.

Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.

It’s not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you’re trying to make any definition of “nazi” as complicated as possible, because you’re wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.

Remember how you said you don’t care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?

it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.

No one cares if the Nazis think they’re “credible” or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they’re not a nazi and they ‘hate’ nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, “cheapened” if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.

They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren’t really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don’t have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for “debate”, and “respect for all viewpoints”? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.

Notice how I’m casually referring to you like you’re one of them? That’s not some wokist over-use of the term. You’re standing here defending them, you’re trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you’ve spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don’t care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.

If you’re going to stand with Nazis, if you’re going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don’t get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.

Except that’s a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.

That’s not “discuss other options” - that’s discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.

That you’re now trying to argue that it’s just discussion and it’s reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that you’re defending with “free-speech” and anti-censorship talking points is like … the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.

But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.

I don’t think I jive with the notion that kbin is somehow “above” hating Nazis.

There were years there when any watermark from another site would get OP lynched in the comments, and now Admin over there is sufficiently out of touch they’re going to start doing it to their own content.

Bets are on that this is a stupid kneejerk test from Reddit, worried that post-migration community hubs are going to “profit from their content” the same way Reddit did to places like ifunny or 9gag during it’s entire growth arc.