Why tf would I want capcut?

For real.

The law in a lot of places does not allow police to do anything to help someone, before their life has already been risked.

Unfortunately the first attempt on someone’s life can be just as lethal as a hypothetical second.

That’s nice.

Can police start believeing women who tell them they feel they are in danger, and do something about it before someone kills them, now?

What do you mean?

Any post, on any service, is technically accessible on any other instance, running any service. Actual implementation, varies.

Unless you run into it in the feed, the way to find a given post is to enter the original instance url for it into search on the instance from which you want to interact with it.

To upvote this post, for example, even from an instance that it hasn’t federated to, I can enter the url to this post on its host instance into search, and the other instance will fetch the post, allowing me to vote and/or comment.

Same goes for mastodon toots. Get the url, put into search, upvote, comment, whatever.

In my very first reply to you:

If there isn’t an overabundance of food (as you yourself admit, housing is insufficient).

This whole time I’ve been trying to tell you, “no, that is actually a problem” because you started off by minimizing the contribution of corporate interests to the housing problem. I guess I should have made the the implied “as well” more obvious, but it was always there.

You didn’t start off with “we need more housing”. You started off with “it’s not the companies and they are good actually”.

So no, I wasn’t gonna reply with “yes, and”. I didn’t have the option because what you started with needed actual refuting, first.

Did I at some point say we don’t need more housing?

Protip: switch to “yes, and”.

You won’t get a positive response by continuing with “no, actually”.

I believe these same corporate forces are a major reason why housing isn’t being built. Hence my focus is on them, not simply “build more homes”.

In my city, homes are being built, but only by the rich for the rich. I’m finnish, btw.

Well then, we’re back to some people cutting their costs by doing all the things I said above. You dismissed them all as if reasons why they’re not practical are reasons why they’re impossible.

No. I dismissed them as insufficient to show up in the stats. In order to significantly impact the situation, the alternative needs to be valid for any individual. Not just some.

All those landlords have the exact same incentives to charge as much as they can get away with, to subdivide properties and to exploit their renters as corporate landlords do.

Duh. But are you really going to claim single property owners competing with every other single property owner, wouldn’t have different results than duopolistic companies carving up cities and throwing their weight around in legislation?

Have you considered that larger companies are also able to act to maintain the low supply?

Real-estate and construction overlap a great deal, and that influence also grows with consolidation.

And thanks for linking to a study that confirms what I’m trying to say? 3-7% of the largest bill most people have is not nothing.

Does that percentage account for wage stagnation? Which is also exacerbated by mergers.

Everything else is caused by low supply and such.

A few comments ago you were clamining low supply is the only problem.

there is no recent increase in vacancy rates

You’re looking at the wrong stats. When people are forced to spend more on necessities, they don’t cut necessities. They can’t. They’re necessities.

They cut luxuries.

One such relevant stat, would be piracy spiking. Not to mention the spike in homelessness if we are talking about the US.

You yourself point out that housing is not keeping up with need. Things can absolutely be getting worse (and they are), while at the same time not showing up in vacancy rates. The well-off can be moving into new homes faster than the poor are moving back in with parents. Or going homeless.

Another stat is the average age at which people buy their first home increasing.

Another is the ratio of renters increasing in relation to owners.

investment companies are seeing that housing is shooting up in value already, due to low rates of building, hence making it a more attractive investment relative to other things. So they buy them up and charge high rents - but at the same time all the individual owners of rental property also see that they can charge high rents, and do so. All we’ve done is swapped who is screwing renters, not by how much.

This is a distinction without a difference. You’re saying the chicken came first, while I’m trying to explain chickens come from eggs, and the entire relationship between the two.

Increased consolidation increases the co-ordination of price hiking, hence increasing “how much” screwing is going on. But that doesn’t mean a tiny bit of screwing can’t get it started.

I’m saying it has gotten so bad because the problem feeds itself. By allowing more investment, the screwing gets harder.

All we’ve done is swapped who is screwing renters, not by how much.

This is a truly insane take. You’re saying if all rented properties were owned by single landlords who owned no other properties, rents today would still be just as high?

You are bending over backwards to dismiss my points.

Yeah if you literally only 100%, or close to it, of housing in a city, that’s true. But no company does in anywhere I’m aware of.

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. Did you misunderstand my point that they don’t need to own 100%?

There are cases of massive consolidation but the largest competitor acquires like 17% of housing

That is MASSIVE consolidation! If a huge 10% of homes are unneeded, that means they can set the price for 7% as high as they want!

People can move in with parents

Boomers are selling their homes to these companies, because the payout is ludicrous. They pay so much more than what the home is worth, because the return of renting it back to someone needing a home is literally limitless.

move to a cheaper region unaffected by the attempted market abuse

You know why it’s unaffected? Fewer jobs. The pensioners selling their homes can move out there, sure… But the people who need homes in the area they just sold their old home for millions in? Not so much.

share with more people

Right. Because these companies aren’t chopping big apartments into smaller units so they sell each room individually. Are you suggesting people start sharing studio apartment closets?

some people will not pay the higher rents

Some is not enough. The whole reason this works is that these companies can squeeze people on necessities, because someone always has to buy from them. To fight this, everyone has to have access to a better option, so that these companies have zero customers. Because as long as they can squeeze someone, they can squeeze harder than any luxury industry could ever dream of.

I just don’t think that we have any evidence of the high cost of housing being due to excessive company involvement in housing.

This has literally been studied. It’s not about what you “think”. You are ignoring current economic facts.

We are seeing housing crises across the western world in all sorts of cities and all sorts of distributions of ownership.

No shit. When someone finds a way to make profit, the method gets copied. No to mention that stuff like airBnBs skirt regulation and often literally operate against local law or building rules. My very first point was that companies don’t need to own much to start hiking local prices. Heck, you could be just one wealthy individual who owns two extra houses, and by setting your rents high, contribute to the problem.

There is a thru-line here, but because it’s so pervasive, you’re saying it can’t possibly be it.

For companies to cause problems they have to buy so many homes they can abuse their market share by forcing rents up

Not necessarily. Your logic only applies to non-necessities. For a necessity, all you need is to own enough of the industry, that you’re the only option for some people. If there only exists enough housing to just barely house everyone who needs a home, then you could own only 1%, and set the price to whatever you want, because someone will have to live there. Everywhere else is occupied.

which you would see as an increasing vacancy rate

No, you wouldn’t. There is no rent that is so high people will decide to live on the street. They’ll keep paying, until they actually can’t.

Again, this logic only applies to non-necessities. If you hike the price of food, people don’t stop eating. They stop bying luxury goods.

And no, if there isn’t an overabundance of food (as you yourself admit, housing is insufficient) they can’t just switch to the competition, because the competition does not have the capacity to serve everyone.

I don’t think Trump is familiar with shame. Even as a concept.

This is on whoever removed the eyes.

There are like two dozen ways to completely dissolve most adhesives.

Or what, did she epoxy them on there?

You’re confusing my use of the word community in its literal meaning, with its meaning as a term in the context of lemmy as a piece of software.

I do not think that sorting people online by where they are from would help.

In fact I think sorting people online by where they are from could even be harmful, and potentially dangerous.

That the change you would make is small, does not change my opinion that it would be for the worse, nor that your reasoning for wanting to make it, as I understand it, seems faulty.

My proposal concerns servers, not communities.

What’s the difference? Servers are communities.

encourage them to join local communities where they might discuss local issues

There’s that false dichotomy again. I think what instance someone is on has very little effect on what content they engage with. And if it does, this change would be detrimental rather than beneficial.

Corporate social media is only biased towards local if you count the whole USA as “local”. Again, seems to be a misunderstanding. In the US case “local” would mean state or town.

We must be using different corporate social media. Of course facebook, twitter and tiktok show different content depending on every factor there is. The thing is, they wont confront you with people from your town that have a different opinion. They are tuned towards NOT changing whatever opinion you already have, unless you’re pre-disposed to going down dopamine-laced rabbit holes.

Meanwhile, the fediverse does confront people with differing opinions. That it doesn’t necessarily do so locally, is a feature, not a bug.

I don’t agree.

You present two things as if they are mutually exclusive, when they are not.

The very starting point of your argument seems to be that current niche communities can only exist at the expense of local geographic communities.

As such, you seem to suggest sacrificing existing communities in favor of hypothetical “better” communities based on physical proximity.

Such communities are useful in terms of political mobilization, but they aren’t very fun. People don’t bond over tax rates, they bond over tabletop rpgs, cats, music, movies, etc. And you can’t engage in those bonding activities in local communities until they themselves are big enough to contain such niches within them.

And all of these things can exist simultaneously. In fact I completely reject your view that niche online communities do more harm than good.

Boiled down, your view seems to equate to seeing a bunch of people having fun, and telling them to go do something useful, while completely dismissing that it doesn’t matter whether I learn empathy from my neighbor, or someone on the other side of the world.

What you’re asking for, IMO, is for the fediverse to work more like facebook and twitter, which HEAVILY bias their feeds towards local matters. The US would not have been so easy to turn into a xenophobic ball of angry people if their social media were MORE international.

TikTok is even worse about it. The one time I gave it a chance, it was 90% content local to me. But it was mindless trash. At worst, it was xenophobic rhetoric. Local, doesn’t mean meaningful, or good.

You saw it on reddit all the time, how people from the US often didn’t even realize they were talking to people across the world. Because it’s a foreign concept to them. Say what you will but it is the one corporate platform that doesn’t care where you are from. Everyone discussing something gets pooled into the same communities and threads, regardless of age, sex, or even timezone.

That is a good thing. We need more of that, not less. Because online and real-world communities DO overlap. But you seem to be asking them to match. That would isolate them, not empower them.

Online communities today are the one way that authentically bridges communities of people across the world. If online communities matched offline communities, why would I ever develop a desire to understand not just my neighbor, but also people across the world?

How would I ever go and find out for myself, how people across the world think and feel? Whether my government speaks true about the threats around us, or if there is more to it?

If you overlap a bunch of circles, they all become connected. If you match them, you get bubbles.

That is how corporate social media has been functioning for over a decade, and it needs to be stopped, not propagated. If we sort people into only one group (like where they are from), you isolate them.

But when you sort each person into least two groups or more, you connect everyone to everyone, by virtue of almost every group having members in common with every other group.

That issue being two years, I’m not sure what the current state of things is.

But servers did move towards EU to combat the problem, and haven’t moved back for what I know.

It wasn’t just a problem. It was literally impossible for them to keep up.

Re-locating the server was the only option, as opposed to skipping events or shutting down until the problem was fixed.

Please do not condescend.

I know it doesn’t have to work that way, but for a time, it did.

Here is one of the github issues on the problem.

And yes. It led to instance relocations.

It was either don’t federate, and wait for an update with unknown eta, or move closer to the big instances.

Here is one of the github issues on the problem.

Was not aware of the latency issue. But that’s something that can surely be overcome.

I haven’t checked. I may have been already.

As a support structure providing more open communication, the fediverse might help with that. It in itself is not, and is not supposed to be, democratic. It’s its own wierd mix of dictatorship with the option for the community at large to wrest control away from current leaders, should they want to.

As of now, preferring “going local” would hinder more than help with irl democracy. There just aren’t enough users. If you divided them you’d end up with a ton of tiny inactive communities, rather than a bigish pretty lively one.

And it’s not an either or. Or you can have big communities AND small local ones.

Smaller communities are also something that happens naturally, and is already happening naturally. The reddit exodus was the spark for a ton of new niches on lemmy hitting critical mass.

There is also plenty of non-english, more local activity already. You just might not be seeing it due to your language settings.