• SociallyIneptWeeb
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    Honestly I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’ll keep it simple. Enshittification of Twitter, Reddit et al. is not necessarily a result of capitalism, and likewise Fediverse doesn’t exist because “workers took the means of production”.

    For example the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly” (that’s why swear words and gore are banned), and in part due to a need to follow existing copyright law.

    Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

    • Dr. Jenkem
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      Monetisation rules are a direct result of capitalism. Profits are what motivates the decision making. In a post-capitalism economy it would be the needs and wants that motivates the decision making. One of the failures of capitalism is that we assume wants/needs has a correlation with profits, when clearly the enshitification demonstrates otherwise.

      • Kaea
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        In socialism nobody wants to work so good luck with your YouTube. There is a reason for proprietary software being most popular and often more feature rich. What we need is capitalism + more opensource work from us, regular people. Capitalism + opensource is way to go.

          • Kaea
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            If you seriously compare socialism with opensource then I’m sorry for you.

            I’m huge advocate for opensource software and I can even say it’s my life passion and I really know how important the relation between capitalism and opensource is.

            You wouldn’t have react.js without capitalism. You know what is made in react.js? Mastodon

            They could have used different library for js. one made totally by volunteers, but they haven’t. Why? Capitalism and opensource provide reliable products because there is a money factor and it fuels development

            • @aski3252@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              81 year ago

              If you seriously compare socialism with opensource then I’m sorry for you.

              This is how big tech saw free software until quite recently. Microsoft used to call linux communist.

              FOSS basically goes against the concept of private property of software and embraced common ownership of software. Without private property, there is no capitalism. I wouldn’t call FOSS communism or socialism, but there are elements in it.

              You wouldn’t have react.js without capitalism.

              Ok, and what’s your point? If you read Marx, one essential point he claims is that without capitalism, there cannot be socialism.

              They could have used different library for js. one made totally by volunteers, but they haven’t. Why?

              Probably because they saw no use in reinventing the wheel? And why should they?

              It’s as if you told a revolutionary during the French revolution “You used weapons that you looted from the Bastille, weapons that were produced by the king.”. What exactly would be the argument here?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
                  link
                  fedilink
                  71 year ago

                  When somebody thinks that something like react.js wouldn’t be possible without capitalism, you can only laugh or cry. If you really can’t understand that open source existed long before corps started messing with it, then you’re an utter ignoramus not worth having a discussion with.

                  • Kaea
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    I don’t think you understand what I have said. React.js would be possible without capitalism. But it is made by Facebook (capitalist company). And it must be a really reliable choice if Facebook and Mastodon decided to use it

        • Dr. Jenkem
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          In socialism nobody wants to work so good luck with your YouTube

          They said, on a decentralized, free and open source platform, developed by socialists.

        • @randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago

          Nobody? Look to be honest there are some lazy people that dont want to work but most of us will be happy to work in a socialist economy where we the workers get compensated fairly. Capitalism and open source dont go hand by hand. People is literally creating all of this amazing products for free!! Workinf for the community thats what socialism is. And also the proprietary software is more “popular” because big companies just take open source and make it proprietary then they said they created just look at Apple and RedHat.

          • Kaea
            link
            fedilink
            81 year ago

            huge part of opensource is funded and developed by capitalistic companies. Take Linux for example.

            And imagine if you wanted to open your own coffee shop. Where would you get a place for it? From the state probably. But what if they decide that there is no need for new coffee shop? You would have problem. In capitalism on the other hand you have your free will and as long as you have money you can open your coffee shop anytime anywhere. I know it’s not really as easy to make money but if capitalism isn’t broken by stupid regulations and other nonsense it really can work, allowing you to take cheap loans and start your own businesses.

            I live in a post communist country and trust me I know how shitty socialism is

            • I understand your point on the coffee shop in that you are right. Thats not exactly how capitalism works , if you open a coffee shop and become very profitable then a big company comes in putting out of business forcing you to work for them or close your place. Capitalism is brutal against small businesses. I totally support small business , that’s why I believe that people should have more power not corporations.

              • Kaea
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Free market is a democracy. That’s awesome you support small business and if more people were doing the same thing I can guarantee that big corporations wouldn’t be a problem.

                Another really important factor are regulations. Capitalism right now is way to regulated which makes it really difficult for small businesses to exist. On the other hand big corporations are not regulated enough tho.

                We should work on existing system, try to improve it rather than change it to totally different.

                Also if you wanted to make a switch to socialism you would have to rob a lot of people from their private property

                • @irmoz@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Your conflicting points on regulation show that you don’t actually understand the problems with capitalism.

            • My problem with Capitalism is the profit over anything. The environment , workers , resources , quality , control over the things you bought. There are so many examples where corporations abuse their power.

    • @aski3252@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly”

      Sure, but the reason why they want to keep the site “child friendly” is because content for children is incredibly profitable and because advertisers don’t want their ads getting related to “controversial” content.

      Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

      This is the reason why I don’t like equating socialism with “workers owning the means of production”. Worker-cooperatives can exist in a capitalist economy, which means they have to follow capitalist rules (including the drive to generate profits).

      When leftists say “workers”, they generally mean “the 99%” or “the working class”, not individual workers. When leftists say “the means of production”, they mean the economy/industry overall, not individual companies.

      If youtube was owned and operated in common, it would not be bound to profitability, but to use.

      We can also look at something like peertube, which is essentially a commonly owned version of youtube. Instead of being guided by profitability, it is used based on many different use-cases. There can be peertube instances that are completely private, there can be peertube instances that are used for a specific topic or community (for example kids) and there can be peertube instances which are not for children at all.

    • PorkRollOP
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Enshittification of those services is a direct symptom of capitalism.

      No one is arguing that the fediverse exists because of workers owning the means of production.

      You should really look into what “enshittification” means and how it’s a direct result of capitalism.