Other accounts:

@Danterious@lemm.ee

All of my comments are licensed under the following license

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

[Taking a break. I’m gonna try to not comment/post with this account for sometime.]

  • 10 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 15th, 2023
  • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPtoAskBeehaw@beehaw.org•How would this hypothetical person behave?
    5·
    4 months ago

    That is actually pretty close to how I was thinking about it. I’m just wondering if there is a balance to it all that we can find. Like if existing necessarily causes harm how much of that is necessary and how much of it is exploitation.

    I mean the closest philosophical position that I’ve seen in relation to it is peter singer’s position but that seems exclusive to human-human relations (Edit 3: apparently also animal liberation).

    Edit: Also if I was to focus on invasive species again currently we say that because something is an invasive species we should kill or stop them because they are causing damage to the existing ecosystem. Which makes sense to me it is reducing the diversity and possibilities for that space but on an individual level you would be saying that oh your existence is harming other creatures in the area so we need to kill you to make space for others which seems somewhat inhumane?

    So the question sort of translates to what level of focus are you judging the value of something at?

    Edit 2: Another thing I have against peter singer’s position is that it’s too utilitarian

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

  • Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPtoTechnology@beehaw.org•Media Literacy Can't Save Us
    8·
    6 months ago

    Curating this volume of content is impossible, and there are legitimate dangers in giving the government too much ability to shut down free speech

    Agreed. We have already given more than enough control to the government in other areas of our lives. We now have alternative social platforms that give us a chance to actually have more direct control over our media landscape which hasn’t been true in such a long time.

    you have to build a society that doesn’t want to engage with bigotry, and explore and question its own assumptions (and that’s not ever a fixed state, it’s an ongoing process).

    I think this is what they were trying to get across when they mention media ecology. They were pointing out how the structure of where media is shared and its sources can be more important for quashing disinformation than the actual content itself.

    So when something is shared through YouTube there are certain pressures that over time mold the source of information into a specific format.

    I’d say the same is true of the Fediverse as well. That’s why its important we get the structure here right because it will determine what kind of platform this place turns into.

    Edit: grammar

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)