It sure would've been nice if any of those managers and engineers thought of that before creating this situation. If my decisions led to the company nearly losing one of its biggest products, I'd be fired on the spot. I wonder which Googlers got promoted for getting us here.
restricting the power of the rich comes with downsides
Say, if I don't believe there's a good reason for a person's wealth to reach Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk levels, if I say that's not healthy for society, that we ought to implement heavier progressive tax and that people like him must pay it properly, can you explain what the downside would be?
Poe's law has bested me. I'm just gonna hope it's all a joke and leave, now.
I think you might've accidentally added sarcasm tags to your admission.
I think there was a similar idea in the USA with the COPIED Act, but I haven't heard about it since.
I honestly can't tell if there's a disguise. Maybe there isn't! He seems to genuinely and stubbornly believe in the apolitical-centrist stuff, which you wouldn't think him capable of since he's so intelligent when it comes to programming... but programming intelligence is not necessarily applicable anywhere else.
I don't think that's just opinion anymore, it's a fairly accurate analysis. Countless serious projects use pronouns and "they," and that's fine, but for these few specific groups they're somehow political and a bad thing.
I've heard Andreas' twitter likes were telling, before those went private, but that information's out of reach now. That said, I've seen the people who frequently interact with him there, and I wouldn't feel comfortable around them either. He seems to really like it, though. Make of that what you will.
Still, good point on the reality of "moral software use." For all its issues, I do hope Ladybird succeeds as a new browser engine because the internet needs more of those. I'm just not touching it unless they get their shit sorted.
Or have kids to "bring them closer together"
I've seen it, and it's horrifying. Like throwing gas at a fire to see if it goes out, because it's not as though things could get worse if they're wrong.
I hope newer generations manage to ditch older, screwed up ideas of what marriage is and realize the value of having a beloved partner, rather than whatever the hell I see some older people treating their spouses as.
Speaking of features, I'm somewhat surprised more people aren't interested in Misskey and co., especially compared to Mastodon's overwhelming share of the Fediverse pie.
Maybe on Bluesky they start with one person less calling them tards.
Your content stays behind, though, and some shut down without warning.
Your posts will not be moved, due to technical limitations.
I think most popular online social spaces—here included—are unconducive to the kind of long-term, active effort conversations between individuals that might change someone's mind. Instead, we gather as many as we can and just start shouting.
Shout it loudly into every medium and hope your fiefdom's propaganda, however meager, pulls in some people over time. It's all about that noise, because noise means engagement, and engagement is the de facto cost-effective tool in social media. Honest conversations are high-cost, dubious reward. They're tiring. Jading. Hardly worth it. So, broadcasting ideas it is.
It's fundamentally the same method the ruling class has used, and continues effectively using, to influence the world in any scale that actually matters, except they reach hundreds of millions every day while we dozen thousand few shout at each other in a dark alley.
Regarding online behavior, you might consider that Lemmy has largely failed to fix it. I posit that it barely ever tried, but also that it's an extremely difficult problem because the root cause is us.