Me, not necessarily. I think it will be a good thing when big companies run fediverse instances too. The point of the fediverse is to have choices whom (including which big company) to trust.
schnurrito
joined 1 year ago
The sky is currently black where I am, stop spreading disinformation
Facebook is only really useful for really small niche communities where most posts don't get more than a handful of comments.
It used to be the case that YouTube comments were one of the lowest forms of communication known to mankind. It isn't anymore, not for several years now. There actually are sometimes some intelligent insights displayed prominently there. I suppose they probably changed their algorithm somehow.
Moving into my own apartment mainly.
But also: politicians and other celebrities being younger than me.
(I mean of course Justin Bieber is younger than me and has been a celebrity for a long time, but that used to be the exception, now there are so many.)
At some point this has to be counterproductive to their profits. When YouTube had way fewer and shorter ads than now, I spent a lot more of my time there than I do now. They literally drove my eyeballs away by showing too many ads.
No one said it was irrational, but sure why not
Let epsilon be a large number
If it's free, you're the product. (In this case the target of propaganda.)
This used to not be true for things that were not only free-as-in-beer but also freely licensed; but nowadays literally the only reason why anyone in their right mind might want to edit Wikipedia is that they think they can influence public opinion that way, so it is definitely true there too.
I was with you until the last sentence. Things like that are usually supported by many or even most Democrats too. The Democratic Party isn't a civil libertarian party, at all.
I have not researched these specific cases, so may be wrong about them.
That then is one third party, one fourth party, one fifth party, …, and one 768th party, amirite?
It used to be that Wikimedia projects had lots of volunteers willing to maintain the projects, but the WMF didn't have a lot of money. Now the WMF is swimming in money (which it uses to do more and more "office actions" bypassing community processes), but editor numbers are staying constant or even shrinking. People nowadays like to spend time a lot more pretty much everywhere else on the Internet than on Wikimedia projects.
It is time for free knowledge to transition to a concept where people get paid, not the wiki concept that worked fine to start out in the beginning, but whose limits have now become clear.