• 539 Posts
  • 696 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • “Heritage is duty” refers to the heritage of computing, not of human beings. Completely non-outrageous in context.

    “Command is service”, ok, that explains why Omarchy isn’t a democracy. I think many other FOSS projects aren’t either, so I don’t see anything outrageous in that either.

    And you may of course disagree with their opinion on “Code-of-Conduct struggle sessions and identity-overload nonsense” (not words I would have used). Many completely well-meaning people hold different opinions on those topics.



  • Congratulations, you’ve just managed to advertise the exact thing you oppose. I would likely have given zero attention or thought to Omarchy today if I hadn’t seen this thread.

    Also, I just read that “The Omarchy Doctrine” page; if someone seriously thinks that is a “fascist creed”, then that is very interesting. About the person who thinks that. If someone could help me figure out what part of that is supposed to be outrageous or especially controversial, I’d appreciate any help!




  • What part of that surprised you?

    EFF is a digital rights organization. Copyright was one of the earliest threats to digital rights that people were aware of. In the 2000s, it was generally thought of as the main threat, which is why at the time, political parties called “Pirate Parties” were formed around the world, which were all about digital rights.

    So it’s completely expected that EFF would take sides against copyright holders. In fact I agree with them on that.










  • because these politicians know extremely little about the Internet

    I started participating in online communities in the 2000s. The “social media” we had back then was web forums, organized by topics and sorted chronologically. I was young enough at the time that it is now permanently stored in my brain that that is the normal way the Internet should be like, and everything popularized since then (recommendation algorithms, the idea that we should follow people instead of topics, even the idea that websites shouldn’t be specific to certain topics) is a deviation from normalcy.

    I know, rationally, that those deviations from normalcy are now the new normal (even the fediverse is “only” an attempt to improve further on that, not a move toward the Internet of the 2000s), but there is still a part of my brain that doesn’t accept this.

    But I very strongly suspect that those politicians, in Australia and elsewhere, who are now trying to regulate the Internet, never posted anything to a traditional web forum, or edited a wiki, or anything like that. To them, “social media” became a thing (at all!) in around 2008 to 2010 when they created Twitter and Facebook accounts in order to communicate with their voters. (Reality check: social media has been a thing since, at the latest, the 1980s, when Usenet was invented.)

    If they don’t know that the Internet is not Facebook, then it’s unsurprising when they regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, so that all that will be left is Facebook. Sad times we are living in.