No, it cannot.
They are confronting what is obvious, effective tools to undermine democracy with some weird experiment that is at best a niche effort to do online social engineering much more than it is social media.
Social media is a destructive force. By nature. Yes, Fedi as well.
You learn to manage in society, maybe. Like you do addiction and cancer and crime. The techno-optimism stuff is borderline delusional at this point.
What, you think any of the stuff he said is expected by his base?
It was never about the stuff he said, it was about how you didn’t have an answer to it he couldn’t counter, so you lose and they win.
What you lose and they win about was never the issue, and there is no consequence to it beyond perhaps the opportunity of another argument they may have a harder time winning, but they know how to win arguments against you, so they’re not particularly worried.
Nah, they did it with Youtube videos.
But on the underlying point of “everybody is freaking out about AI things that good old big data had been doing for years with zero pushback” I very strongly agree.
I hate modern reporting.
So, ok, here we go, fact checking dot lemmy dot com.
Tihs one seems to come from Google’s 2025 environmental report, which the article mentions but does not link despite being publicly available. The message Google would like you to take here is that while their power consumption has increased significantly their emissions have not (key chart below).
I guess that’s what you get for trying to spin these things. You get spun right back.
Anyway, Google would also like you to know that:
“However, it’s important to note that our growing electricity needs aren’t solely driven by AI. The accelerating growth of Google Cloud, continued investments in Search, the expanding reach of YouTube, and more, have also contributed to this overall growth.”
This tracks. While power consumption seems to be speeding up a bit, it’s been climbing for a while pretty consistently. I don’t know of Google’s implication that less CO2-heavy power generation is enough to not have to care about it, but I also don’t really see a way to reverse this trend. Data centers are data centers, and whether they’re crunching AI numbers or running every spreadsheet in the world, a bunch of big companies are committed to continuing to own a disproportionate chunk of the computing power of the entire planet so they can sell it to you by the minute.
Well, yeah, but so are plenty of other gross things and you don’t see me out there raiding coastal villages just because we’ve spent longer taking things from each other by force than enforcing some peaceful, democratic social contract.
To be clear, I’m not disagreeing, we have tribalism baked into us. It just happens to suck and we should strive to break past our built-in biases.
OK, so the difference is a nationalist is a supremacist and a patriot is not.
So I’m back to my original statement, then. Patriotism sucks. Call it what you want, but allegiance to specifically a nation, nation-state or whatever construct you’re assigning special status is bad and I actively oppose it.
I’m not arguing in bad faith, I’m disagreeing. But you made it seem like we don’t actually disagree and like you had a distinction that made patriotism not match the thing I’m saying is bad, so I want to understand if that’s the case. It doesn’t seem to be the case. You think patriotism is not a problem and think my negative characterization is of nationalism instead.
Let me be clear, it is not.
The patriotism you’re talking about? The lovey-dovey “improve your country and learn from others” patriotism? It sucks. That’s what I’m saying here.
I’m also saying it’s just whitewashed nationalism and that your distinction between supremacist nationalism and patriotic nationalism is superficial at best an non-existent at worst. Sure, not all nationalists or patriots are equally toxic, but that doesn’t mean the concept of patriotism is salvageable into something positive.
You owe no allegiance to your nation, beyond what ties you culturally to the groups of people that live within it. Just like you don’t owe allegiance to your hometown beyond the same concerns. Or, you know, to the planet.
You wanting to improve any one of those scales of human organization isn’t any better or worse than the other, and the mere fact of implying any special relevance to one of them is a brand of nationalism I just don’t find justified. It’s a bit like religion. It can be well-intentioned and genuine, but in the long view of history it is undeniably an irrational, toxic force at the core of many atrocities. I will respect it and your right to participate in it, because the alternative is worse, but I won’t take part in it and I don’t think it’s a good thing.
Things, yeah. National symbology, not as much.
I’ll say that I agree with you, though. Americans do way creepier stuff. The first time I attended a US sporting event it felt exactly like being trapped in some ritual for a religion I don’t understand. They may as well have been ripping off some poor guy’s still beating heart before lowering him into lava and watching it spontaneously burst into flame, for all I cared. I genuinely didn’t know what to do with myself for the entire duration of the thing.
I’ve never been to school there, either. I imagine watching a bunch of children recite their daily indoctrinations must be creepy AF. I’m not sure if it actually happens, though. It’s never in American movies.
OK, so it’s just nationalism, then.
I have a real problem trying to wrap my head around where you’re drawing that line. Is the problem that “patriots” honestly believe they’re making things better? Because it seems to me that the difference that leaves between a nationalist and a patriot is whether you agree with them.
From the side of the victors it’s easy to see slightly morally flawed patriots where, had things gone the other way, people would see nationalist zealots.
I’m also surprised at you bringing up left and right divides. There are plenty of violent nationalists across the spectrum. I mean, it’s definitely true that traditional leftists were internationalists (hell, left-wing movements organized in “internationals” and that’s also the name of their anthem). So historically yeah, right wingers are more patriotic/nationalistic, but there’s no shortage of left wing nationalists, either.
I don’t know, man, I struggle to share your very US-centric view, but also to see how anywhere in there is a distinction between those two terms. If patriots are just nationalists you like then you start to sound a lot like one.
The etymology of the term is certainly much older than the nation-state, but also entirely disconnected from modern meanings (or ironic/facetious, which I do appreciate). There is just no original, clean, virtuous instance of “patriot” dislodged from the nationalist undertones. It simply has never existed.
The mistake you’re making is assuming that US revolutionaries weren’t nationalists or were praiseworthy or fundamentally different than British colonists. We’re going to disagree on that one. I mean, never mind that they didn’t invent the term or that their whitewashing of it was self-serving. Even if your timeline of events was true, I despise their patriotism as much as anybody else’s. US revolutionaries weren’t some ideal version of a patriot, they were nationalist independentists who happened to borrow some French revolutionary ideas about the liberal democratic state-nation organization slightly earlier than their previous administration did (and perhaps due to the first draft nature of the thing, slightly worse, too).
I won’t judge them by modern standards, but I also absolutely, entirely refuse to sacralize them or idealize them. They were what they were, and they are absolutely not the thing that’s going to give patriotism a good name.
Well, then what fatherland is the patriot beholden to?
Cause that’s what the word means.
I get it, particularly in countries where the nation state has overlapped more or less perfectly for a long time it’s hard to shed the emotional attachment, but there’s no need for it.
See, the reason I go from small to international is precisely that the nation state takes care of itself. The world has agreed that it’s the natural resting place of sovereignty and every other scale of governance or administration os derived from it. I don’t like that much. I don’t resent it, but I also don’t give it immediate precedence over any other scale of government.
A patriot may care for whatever arbitrary definition the XVIIIth century put on their identity and be well meaning enough about it. I’m not a patriot. The historical borders of what some consider a nation today have no particular relevance, beyond the fact that they happen to drive some level of administration. If anything, it’s the level where the most people decide to infringe on each other’s business just because they feel they have a right to ownership over that national identity. I have no particular interest in whitewashing any of that into some supposedly healthy version of patriotism that has very rarely existed in any way.
That’d be great if it didn’t disagree with all available evidence. For all of history patriots have been either cannon fodder or abusive tyrants. On a long enough trajectory, almost inevitably nationalists and eventually imperialists.
One could argue that, much like some flavors of political utopia, internationalism has the advantage of never having been implemented in any practical sense, so they have less of a challenge proving their positive impact, but I’ll take it anyway.
Regardless, I find that “making their country better” should be a distant second to “making the world better”, and perhaps a close third behind “making the crap you have on hand and the lives of those immediately around you better”.
Look, I am not a globalist anarchist. I believe in well structured, effective democratic governments. Maybe I was the right age to look at the EU and think that those don’t have to be held to the absurd liberal idea of the nation-state,and that wherever a collective of humans have a common interest there should be governance structured to work with other layers of organization to improve things and enforce rights within that sphere. There is nothing magical about the nation-state layer of government that makes it more spiritually attuned to identity or the needs of the people. It’s all administrative stuff as far as I’m concerned.
Yeah, well, that depends on who gained independence from whom and whether you think you’re independent now. Also on whether you’d be indepedendent from any guys who’d like to be independent from the now guys if they were to be independent.
See, political independence for a group requires that you align with the idea the group has of itself. I don’t know that I have that overlap with any particular political delineation, so I may need an organization a touch more nuanced than an independent, sovereign nation-state.
Also, gonna need some citation on the lack of creepy vibe, as mentioned above.
Over here the only similar events I can think of are related to joining the military and taking elected office. And there was significant legal arguing about the last one, to the point where opt-outs and strict limitations were added.
We have one of those, and it’d be creepy even if historically it wasn’t debatable that the event itself was for the better.
I don’t know that I agree with this.
Perhaps coming from a place where the notion of “country” and “nation” don’t overlap one to one makes it easier to see. I wouldn’t really be able to tell you what “my nation” even is, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
I respect and take pride in culture in all its diversity and complexity, in democracy and in the general sense of human decency. Screw all the so-called nations trying to get me to vouch for them as a political unit, though. Political organization is for buiding roads and hospitals, not for pride.
Not being American I always found the whole thing very creepy. Like, North Korean military parade-creepy.
For the record, we don’t have anything like that where I’m from, but the closest things we do have are also very creepy. Patriotism in general is extremely not cool, honestly.
Cool.
But the pitch wasn’t “everything will be interoperable unless the company doesn’t mean it or wants to make money or we aren’t “morally aligned”, whatever that means”.
I don’t understand how you can be a “walled garden” and still feature interoperability with a set of open source platforms under a pre-established set protocol. This is not an ethical problem or a problem of ideology, those two things are mutually exclusive.
This also sounds a whole lot like it disproves skrlet13’s point on the heterogeneous Fedi where everything fits under different but overlapping bubbles. Seems to me you think Fedi has the one moral and ethical position on this.
Yeah, well, don’t tell them. The fields of Mastodon are still full of the debris of the Great Threads Arguments. Seemed to me everybody thought they had the correct and only Fedi.
I am remarkably annoyed by this guy making predictions on measurable things that he then entirely vibe-checks.
I own a couple that were only distributed in this region that way in an acceptable format for weird reasons related to localization. And then I moved internationally a couple of times and the Microsoft store REALLY isn’t willing to understand that’s a thing that can happen. It’s been a bit of a mess and one of the multiple reasons to not use MS’s store as a package/software manager in the first place.