Kind of interesting to read something that so clearly isn’t critical of the system but is advocating for something that would fundamentally require systemic change. Liberal movements to further police the internet at a state level is constructed here as the selfish acts of self-interested politicians who are simply using the system wrong, not the inevitable consequence of a system that relies on the subordination of different groups of people and therefore must control the means by which people communicate. The internet is a problem for colonialism and capitalism, full stop. They aren’t citing youth wellbeing and ignoring them in legislative decisions because they forget or they are particularly inconsiderate, it’s because they know the child represents the continuation of this system and they are evoking an ideal innocence associated with children to construct the internet as a corrupting force on society. They know they don’t have to actually think about the kids because that would mean anything else is valued over capital.
It talks about addressing the root causes for the disingenuously cited problems that unregulated internet access poses, but then ignores the fundamental role that corporations have played in facilitating those issues exactly because the internet was inevitably commodified under this system. The fact that there is one video platform controlled by one of the largest corporations in the world that reliably kneecaps any competition was what, not an issue? That these corporate entities are beholden to the interests of almost exclusively Americand and European imperialistic interests is not a coincidence, and until quite recently their transnational operation allowed for a significant amount of informal influence on colonized spaces. The only reason they’re doing this is because they know that people within the empire have effectively used it to organize resistance, and that this is avoided in this mission statement speaks to the dissonance between “democratic” internet movements and the reality that the internet exists in.
What do you mean by formatting? I just read it and it is fine. And if its about length, I was able to read it during my shift, I think pretty much everyone could do easily.
I’d say the comment is readable, but could benefit from formatting and some more concise expressions on some places. Using words whose meaning is not universally understood by people with average to mid-high education is counterproductive to spreading a message.
I can’t express in words how incomprehensible it is to me that you’d suggest I edit my comments for accessibility on something like Lemmy. I don’t care if people who would already get mad or offended by this have an easier time reading it, and people who are curious can ask questions if they please.
Don’t elevate this place to a level that demands unpaid labour. It gives more legitimacy to the libs and chuds that dominate it.
Kind of interesting to read something that so clearly isn’t critical of the system but is advocating for something that would fundamentally require systemic change. Liberal movements to further police the internet at a state level is constructed here as the selfish acts of self-interested politicians who are simply using the system wrong, not the inevitable consequence of a system that relies on the subordination of different groups of people and therefore must control the means by which people communicate. The internet is a problem for colonialism and capitalism, full stop. They aren’t citing youth wellbeing and ignoring them in legislative decisions because they forget or they are particularly inconsiderate, it’s because they know the child represents the continuation of this system and they are evoking an ideal innocence associated with children to construct the internet as a corrupting force on society. They know they don’t have to actually think about the kids because that would mean anything else is valued over capital.
It talks about addressing the root causes for the disingenuously cited problems that unregulated internet access poses, but then ignores the fundamental role that corporations have played in facilitating those issues exactly because the internet was inevitably commodified under this system. The fact that there is one video platform controlled by one of the largest corporations in the world that reliably kneecaps any competition was what, not an issue? That these corporate entities are beholden to the interests of almost exclusively Americand and European imperialistic interests is not a coincidence, and until quite recently their transnational operation allowed for a significant amount of informal influence on colonized spaces. The only reason they’re doing this is because they know that people within the empire have effectively used it to organize resistance, and that this is avoided in this mission statement speaks to the dissonance between “democratic” internet movements and the reality that the internet exists in.
You should work on formatting if you want people to read that.
What do you mean by formatting? I just read it and it is fine. And if its about length, I was able to read it during my shift, I think pretty much everyone could do easily.
I’d say the comment is readable, but could benefit from formatting and some more concise expressions on some places. Using words whose meaning is not universally understood by people with average to mid-high education is counterproductive to spreading a message.
I can’t express in words how incomprehensible it is to me that you’d suggest I edit my comments for accessibility on something like Lemmy. I don’t care if people who would already get mad or offended by this have an easier time reading it, and people who are curious can ask questions if they please.
Don’t elevate this place to a level that demands unpaid labour. It gives more legitimacy to the libs and chuds that dominate it.
I just started to relate the other guy. Find sone grass and step on it.
You made a spelling error, I better see an “Edited” icon soon.
Nah, its fine.
And about the words you choose, I hope you don’t use this language in your daily life. You would make a terrible friend for everyday conversations
If two paragraphs is too much for you, I don’t care if you read it.