Mastodon downside

[HRM Resident]

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/19/mastodon-social-twitter-alternative-elon-musk

>snip<

"Most have chosen to adopt fairly common prohibitions on hate speech,
abusive behavior and misinformation. But it's entirely feasible for a
server to, for example, welcome QAnon conspiracy theorists or white
supremacists."

I prefer not to be anywhere near "conspiracy theorists" and "white
supremacists." They can say anything they want, but I don't have to
read it.

This is why I eschew all social media except this one Usenet group.

--
HRM Resident

[Donna Whitman]

Their decentralized model poses a number of problems like finding people and topics anwhere other than the server you use. I had an account for a few days and dropped it. I LIJED Twitter until Musk took over and have now found a home on Tribel,

[James Warren]

On Saturday, 19 November 2022 at 11:32:18 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> https://www.axios.com/2022/11/19/mastodon-social-twitter-alternative-elon-musk
>
> >snip<
>
> "Most have chosen to adopt fairly common prohibitions on hate speech,
> abusive behavior and misinformation. But it's entirely feasible for a
> server to, for example, welcome QAnon conspiracy theorists or white
> supremacists."
>
> I prefer not to be anywhere near "conspiracy theorists" and "white
> supremacists." They can say anything they want, but I don't have to
> read it.

That is always the case on any social medium.

>
> This is why I eschew all social media except this one Usenet group.

You have no experience with them yet you eschew them. Interesting.

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> That is always the case on any social medium.
>

Yes, it has.

>
> You have no experience with them yet you eschew them. Interesting.
>

One doesn't have to have experience with everything to know it ought
to be avoided. I never went to a KKK meeting, for example. Would you
want to go to one for the "experence?"

How about shit sandwiches? Would you try one to see if you ought to
avoid them? I think I could tell I didn't want it without taking a bite. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

As usual you present false analogies.

KKK is known for it's discriminatory beliefs and nothing else.
I have experience with shit and know it to be noxious.

Social media are known for many good things and a few bad
things. They are not typified by the bad things. Those bad things
can be avoided and indeed must be sought out to be experienced.

You eschew the good along with the bad.

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I have experience with shit and know it to be noxious.
>

I can't imagine that. No need to explain.

>
> You eschew the good along with the bad.

Social media is allowing tyrants, bullies, creeps, etc., to bypass
the 4th estate, the pillar of democracy. Since some people can't pick
the flyshit out of the pepper, I choose not to use it. Enjoy! :-) These
things degrade into echo chambers for hatred. Social media is not for me.

--
HRM Resident

[florence.it]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 14:35:32 -0400, HRM Resident <hrm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In quickly looking around Mastodon this a.m. I saw a post with closed
doors. There was a note saying something like 'sensitive material' so
I opened it to see what it was, bunch of people waving rainbow flags
lol

[Mike Spencer]

HRM Resident <hrm...@gmail.com> writes:

> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> You have no experience with them yet you eschew them. Interesting.
>
> One doesn't have to have experience with everything to know it ought
> to be avoided.

Replace "ought to be" with "can be, when estimated liabilities outweigh
reasonably surmised advantages,".

The world if full of things to learn, use, own or do. There are
heavily funded campaigns to sell many of them to you. As well, there
are the social forces of popularity, convention & similar to impell
you toward them. Many such things are new things requiring a learning
effort and others are reconfigured old things requiring a similar
effort to learn the same stuff over again. Many of these things
require maintenance -- monthly payment for a net service, mechanical
service and weather protection if you own a tractor or a boat or
enduring repeated occurences of BSOD if you opt for MS Windoes.

Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify,
simplify! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a
hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen,
and keep your accounts on your thumb-nail.

-- Henry David Thoreau


--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

[James Warren]

The same can be said of Usenet. The difference is that on FB or twitter
is is easier to avoid them than on Usenet. One has to actively search for
content there whereas on Usenet it is just there for all to see.

I think you should eschew Usenet.

> --
> HRM Resident

[James Warren]

You could go even further MIke and build a shack
far back in the woods and live off whatever you
can find in the forest or hunt with your hand made
bow and arrows.
.

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> The same can be said of Usenet. The difference is that on FB or twitter
> is is easier to avoid them than on Usenet.
>

The same could be said, but it wouldn't be right. On this group
there are 3-4 active users, and maybe a few lurkers. At it's peak,
there were 50-60.

Twitter, Facebook and all the other social media giants have
millions, if not billions of subscribers who spit out anything they want
24/7. Zillions of messages I have no need or desire to see or
block. They give me no information I can't find elsewhere. They do
collect lots of information on me. So I will continue to "eschew" them!
:-)

--
HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:

>
> Replace "ought to be" with "can be, when estimated liabilities outweigh
> reasonably surmised advantages,".
>

That's well put, Mike. There's no advantage of mainstream social
media for me, so I don't waste my time with it.

If a person had nothing else to do every waking moment, it might be
useful. I still fail to see what's there that I would want to know about.

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 11:10:25 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > The same can be said of Usenet. The difference is that on FB or twitter
> > is is easier to avoid them than on Usenet.
> >
> The same could be said, but it wouldn't be right. On this group
> there are 3-4 active users, and maybe a few lurkers. At it's peak,
> there were 50-60.

You refer to only one group and even there it was not always so.
There are many other groups where "toxic" content is abundant.
You pick and choose on Usenet. You can do the same on other
social media. In fact :toxic" content can be avoided entirely
because you must seek it out to be exposed to it. No so on
Usenet. Anyone can post whatever they want on any group
they want. It is out of your control.

So avoid Usenet. It is "dangerous".

>
> Twitter, Facebook and all the other social media giants have
> millions, if not billions of subscribers who spit out anything they want
> 24/7. Zillions of messages I have no need or desire to see or
> block.

Yes, true, but you must actively seek it to see it.

> They give me no information I can't find elsewhere.

Same for all social media, even Usenet.

> They do
> collect lots of information on me. So I will continue to "eschew" them!
> :-)

This is your only valid point. You wouldn't want your deviance to
be exposed to corporations. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 11:21:18 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
>
> >
> > Replace "ought to be" with "can be, when estimated liabilities outweigh
> > reasonably surmised advantages,".
> >
> That's well put, Mike. There's no advantage of mainstream social
> media for me, so I don't waste my time with it.

I think your are expression a prejudice. No different from the
the kid who *knows* he doesn't like a specific food even though
he refuses to try it. :)

>
> If a person had nothing else to do every waking moment, it might be
> useful. I still fail to see what's there that I would want to know about.

Yes, but might other people find it useful too?

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I think your are expression a prejudice. No different from the
> the kid who *knows* he doesn't like a specific food even though
> he refuses to try it. :)
>

Apparently, some of us will try anything without thinking. To wit,
yesterday I said I wouldn't like a shit sandwich. For some reason, you
claimed to have tried it. There are some things that don't have to be
experienced for a reasonable thinking person to know.

>
> Yes, but might other people find it useful too?
>

Then let the other people use it. It's not complicated, James. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> So avoid Usenet. It is "dangerous".
>

I have never felt threatened by Usenet in 20-25 years. What did it
do to you to put you off it?

>
> Yes, true, but you must actively seek it to see it.
>

I must not do any such thing. Doesn't one have to set up an accout
for these outfits? Why "must" I bother?

>
> Same for all social media, even Usenet.
>

Perhaps, but Usenet is so tiny compred to the nuclear blasts of
nonsense I hear about on Twiter, FB, etc., are of not interest to me,
and picking and chosing from it is best left to people like you
apparently do.

>
> This is your only valid point. You wouldn't want your deviance to
> be exposed to corporations. :)
>

To what "deviance" to you refer? :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On 2022-11-20 11:41 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I think your are expression a prejudice. No different from the
>> the kid who *knows* he doesn't like a specific food even though
>> he refuses to try it. :)
>>
>
> Apparently, some of us will try anything without thinking. To wit,
> yesterday I said I wouldn't like a shit sandwich. For some reason, you
> claimed to have tried it. There are some things that don't have to be
> experienced for a reasonable thinking person to know.

Still denying your prejudice with a false analogy.

>
>>
>> Yes, but might other people find it useful too?
>>
> Then let the other people use it. It's not complicated, James. :-)

> y
Oh, others will, and yes, it isn't complicated. But you are still
prejudiced and that's not complicated either. :)

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 11:50:07 UTC-4, James Warren wrote:
> On 2022-11-20 11:41 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> > James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I think your are expression a prejudice. No different from the
> >> the kid who *knows* he doesn't like a specific food even though
> >> he refuses to try it. :)
> >>
> >
> > Apparently, some of us will try anything without thinking. To wit,
> > yesterday I said I wouldn't like a shit sandwich. For some reason, you
> > claimed to have tried it. There are some things that don't have to be
> > experienced for a reasonable thinking person to know.

> Still denying your prejudice with a false analogy.
> >
> >>
> >> Yes, but might other people find it useful too?
> >>
> > Then let the other people use it. It's not complicated, James. :-)

> Oh, others will, and yes, it isn't complicated. But you are still
> prejudiced and that's not complicated either. :)

> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>
>> So avoid Usenet. It is "dangerous".
>>
> I have never felt threatened by Usenet in 20-25 years. What did it
> do to you to put you off it?

Are you sure that's true?

>
>>
>> Yes, true, but you must actively seek it to see it.
>>
>
> I must not do any such thing. Doesn't one have to set up an accout
> for these outfits? Why "must" I bother?

Setting up an account does not expose you to any "toxic" content.
Who you choose to follow is entirely up to you. If you see "toxic"
content you can choose to unfollow that poster. You have control
of your environment. Not so much on Usenet.

>
>>
>> Same for all social media, even Usenet.
>>
> Perhaps, but Usenet is so tiny compred to the nuclear blasts of
> nonsense I hear about on Twiter, FB, etc., are of not interest to me,
> and picking and chosing from it is best left to people like you
> apparently do.

Content and influence are not the same thing. The toxic content
on other social media is totally avoidable. If you knew how they
worked you would know that.

>
>>
>> This is your only valid point. You wouldn't want your deviance to
>> be exposed to corporations. :)
>>
> To what "deviance" to you refer? :-)
>

I'm not going to say on a public forum. :)

If the above looks a little weird it's because TB refused to post
my reply so I copied it and pasted it here in Google.

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Still denying your prejudice with a false analogy.
>

Call it what you want. You said you did, not me! :-)

>
> Are you sure that's true?
>

Pretty much. Some former posters put obnoxious stuff here, but I
never feared them. But maybe I should have. Too late now.

>
> Setting up an account does not expose you to any "toxic" content.
> Who you choose to follow is entirely up to you. If you see "toxic"
> content you can choose to unfollow that poster. You have control
> of your environment. Not so much on Usenet.
>

I still don't see the answer to why you feel I (or anyone) "must"
join up. It's not my thing. You have fun with it . . .

>
> Content and influence are not the same thing. The toxic content
> on other social media is totally avoidable. If you knew how they
> worked you would know that.
>

I don't need to try everything possible to know if I will like
it. I guess you do. That's a strange approach. Have you tried
yelling fire in a theatre? I wouldn't (unless there was one), but
maybe it's something you have tried. You come across as 'odd.' :-)

>
> I'm not going to say on a public forum. :)
>

Thanks! :-)

> If the above looks a little weird it's because TB refused to post
> my reply so I copied it and pasted it here in Google.
>

Looks OK to me.

--
HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Oh, others will, and yes, it isn't complicated. But you are still
> prejudiced and that's not complicated either. :)
>

Good for 'others.' Why am I prejudiced? Because I won't do what
you want? Poor you. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 12:16:43 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Still denying your prejudice with a false analogy.
> >
> Call it what you want. You said you did, not me! :-)
> >
> > Are you sure that's true?
> >
> Pretty much. Some former posters put obnoxious stuff here, but I
> never feared them. But maybe I should have. Too late now.
> >
> > Setting up an account does not expose you to any "toxic" content.
> > Who you choose to follow is entirely up to you. If you see "toxic"
> > content you can choose to unfollow that poster. You have control
> > of your environment. Not so much on Usenet.
> >
> I still don't see the answer to why you feel I (or anyone) "must"
> join up. It's not my thing. You have fun with it . . .

This is an obvious deliberate misunderstanding. I did not say you
must join up. I said you must seek toxic content to see it.

Apparently you are so accustomed to this form of lying that you
don't see it, or maybe you do, in which case you are being dishonest.

> >
> > Content and influence are not the same thing. The toxic content
> > on other social media is totally avoidable. If you knew how they
> > worked you would know that.
> >
> I don't need to try everything possible to know if I will like
> it. I guess you do.

I run the risk of prejudice if I don't. I also avoid the risk of being
wrong. If I don't try I will not risk being wrong and that risk must
be avoided at all costs. :)

> That's a strange approach. Have ylu tried

> yelling fire in a theatre? I wouldn't (unless there was one), but
> maybe it's something you have tried. You come across as 'odd.' :-)

Where do you dig up these non-sequiturs?

[James Warren]

That's another deliberate misstatement of what I said. It is your
favourite "debate" style. Trumpsters and followers do this all
the time. Chasing down all that shit is tiresome. When I tire of
it you call it winning, just like Trump.

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[Mike Spencer]

I already live in a shack in the woods, albeit a pretty good 140
y.o. shack. And Thoreau didn't pursue his experiment nearly as long
as I've lived here.

But you subvert the objective of "Simplify, simplify, simplify" by
reducing it to a one-dimensional linear affair of "progress" or a
similar/related notion.

I may have mentioned here before that at Christmas in 1961 my then
girlfriend gave me a nice little cuff link box from a prestigious
jeweler. It contained two 1/4" x 3/4" black bolts with nuts. I was
quite charmed. (Yes, she later gave me the real sterling cuff links
that I still have although I no longer have a shirt with French
cuffs.) Putting nuts on threaded bolts is less simple single-handed
than operating the conventional cuff link toggles so attention to
detail reveals that the bolts weren't really a simplification but
acuity of her perceptions was spot on.

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> That's another deliberate misstatement of what I said. It is your
> favourite "debate" style. Trumpsters and followers do this all
> the time. Chasing down all that shit is tiresome. When I tire of
> it you call it winning, just like Trump.
>

Ah, you are using the 2020's version of Godwin's law. The
first person to mention TFG is deemed to have lost the argument.

You lost the same arguemet twice! Jeez. That might be a record. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[Mike Spencer]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

> I think your are expression a prejudice. No different from the
> the kid who *knows* he doesn't like a specific food even though
> he refuses to try it. :)

The hallmark of wisdom is being able to make valid judgements without
having personally experienced in detail the circumstances of the
domain judged.

[James Warren]

Maybe so, but is rejecting both good and bad when the bad is easily avoided
still wisdom?

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 13:25:13 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > That's another deliberate misstatement of what I said. It is your
> > favourite "debate" style. Trumpsters and followers do this all
> > the time. Chasing down all that shit is tiresome. When I tire of
> > it you call it winning, just like Trump.
> >
> Ah, you are using the 2020's version of Godwin's law. The
> first person to mention TFG is deemed to have lost the argument.

Now you're making up your own laws to convenience yourself. :)

>
> You lost the same arguemet twice! Jeez. That might be a record. :-)

True is still true no matter how many times it is repeated. :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Ah, you are using the 2020's version of Godwin's law. The
>> first person to mention TFG is deemed to have lost the argument.
>
> Now you're making up your own laws to convenience yourself. :)
>

No, no, dear child! I am telling you the new version of Goodwin's
Law. If you are unable to grasp this, or you dispute it, you either
are stuck pre-2014 or a TFG fan. :-)

>
> True is still true no matter how many times it is repeated. :)
>

It's new to me to win the same debate twice. Thanks, you old
scudder, you! :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 at 16:03:24 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Ah, you are using the 2020's version of Godwin's law. The
> >> first person to mention TFG is deemed to have lost the argument.
> >
> > Now you're making up your own laws to convenience yourself. :)
> >
> No, no, dear child! I am telling you the new version of Goodwin's
> Law. If you are unable to grasp this, or you dispute it, you either
> are stuck pre-2014 or a TFG fan. :-)

Yep. Making shit up, as usual. :)

> >
> > True is still true no matter how many times it is repeated. :)
> >
> It's new to me to win the same debate twice. Thanks, you old
> scudder, you! :-)

Eh, if you define win the way you like you can never lose. That's
a good strategy for your ego, but is it real? :)

>
> --
> HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Yep. Making shit up, as usual. :)
>

Sadly, not many remember the horrible person who inspired Goodwin's
Law way back in the 90s. It's been modernized. It's now TFG. Get with
the program and accept that the world has moved on . . . from that Nazi
monster and from FORTRAN. :-)

>
> Eh, if you define win the way you like you can never lose. That's
> a good strategy for your ego, but is it real? :)
>

Win = the other person gives up. I fail to see how that isn't a
win. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>>
>> You lost the same arguemet twice! Jeez. That might be a record. :-)
>
> True is still true no matter how many times it is repeated. :)
>

So . . . how many times did I win? :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

It is, in a political debate, where facts and truth don't count
for much.

[James Warren]

One, if I'm being generous. :)

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> One, if I'm being generous. :)

I counted 3. :-)

--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

You're a hopeless optimist. :)

[HRM Resident]

James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> You're a hopeless optimist. :)
>

I won 3 times. Fess up! :-)
--
HRM Resident

[James Warren]

On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 14:15:05 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:

And stubborn too! :)