As many have said there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and you can't know everything about everyone, so no matter what you're going to end up supporting something unethical at some point.

That being said, all I can do is act on the information I have, and when I learn about some situation like this, I don't have an easy answer or decision flow chart. But I do ask myself two questions.

How much will my support enable more of the behaviour I find abhorrent? And how much will the knowledge ruin my appreciation of the thing?

I cannot read Ender's Game even though I always meant to since I found out about Orson Scott Card's politics about ten years back. And while there's (somehow) way, way worse people out there the knowledge, especially the holocaust denial, just ruins any enjoyment I could get from the books or movies, regardless of any separate-art-from-artist arguments.

But I am a huge Lovecraft fan, and he was also just the worst. But the guy's dead, it doesn't matter if I buy his books or not. And even then despite his popularity across Geekdom he's a relatively niche author. His views aren't going to reach a lot of people.

I think this works out differently if the creator is someone current and powerful or influential. If we can blunt the impact of a popular creator spreading toxic views that prevents a lot more bad than than the same frome someone dead or niche. Even if that's only lack of support, that's still more.

I guess what I'm saying it is has less to do with the details of the bad views or actions, and more about much my support helps enable those. The less I contribute by watching or buying or clicking, the less I'm concerned about it. Unless it just personally bothers me.

I don't know if that's the right answer but it's the one I've got right now

"um, akshully, it's not genocide, but it might still be bad or whatever." Ridiculous

Setting aside whether Israel's attacks, killings, civilian casualties and mass displacement meet a particular definition of genocide, what possible reason does the author have to quibble on this?

Either they're merely being pedantic (which I find hard to believe) or they're trying to blunt outrage over what I think any reasonable person would call a genocide. They're reaching for any means possible to make these crimes seem less heinous. Seems like a move of desperation to me.

Is that Aftermath? I just started reading it today.

I'm also a fan of 404 media, started by motherboard defectors.

I worry about subscription fatigue setting in, but I do think it's exciting that breakway independent media is seemingly having a moment right now

As has been said I'm sure without Yahtzee the site is basically over.

Which is too bad I really enjoyed extra punctuation and the Slightly Something Else podcast. The whole point of having a subscriber model is that you're not beholden to advertising or the algorithm or nebulous corporate goals, as the hosts have aid many times.

I guess it goes to show getting acquired by a corp only ever benefits the corp

I believe that that "cancel culture" is really just "consequence culture." At one point users could hold powerful entities to account. The flattening of the public sphere twitter provided was a feature.

Absolutely there have been people who got targeted who did not deserve it - regular folks who posted a shit take that caught the mobs attention. But I think one of the motivations for Elon acquiring twitter and threads' non-chronological feed is to clamp down on this kind of of organizing and centralize power.

As for hate speech, the problem that is that any solution at scale means AI and that reveals the biases of those who wrote it. These solutions can't serve everyone.

And outrage fuels engagement - these companies are incentived to allow that.

So basically I think large networks can't solve the problem. What's needed is a decentralized approach with small interoperable communities vetting their members. Even if you get a hate filled instance it can be locked off so it can't spread. Hate-motivated jerks have always existed, they just had no real access to the discourse until the internet. I really think the answer is the fediverse of tomorrow - if we make it that far.

there's a conspiracy theory - use the fee as a way to normalize paying X for things and then pivot to paying through X for things until it's the fascist super app of elon's sweaty fever dreams.

Late to this discussion, but speaking as a Reddit refugee and a very average user, I'll follow beehaw wherever it goes...

...but I will probably also fire up my nearly-forgotten kbin account as well.

The fediverse is far from ready for the challenges that it faces but I'm very interested in its development and future. I really think it or something like it is what the internet is trending towards. I'm quite lucky being in some of priveleged categories so I don't face the level of harassment many fellow beeple do very day.

I think we have a good thing going here and it's so freeing to read and comment without having to read past all the usual hate and bad behaviour.

So Im happy to lurk in one place and be myself in another. Do what you guys have to do. I'm in.

I think there was a "snarkiness" to the earlier web that I still appreciate. I'm fine with a one-word answer or a shit post if it's funny and not hateful. I think the tone became a more extreme and worse version of itself over time. The internet is a place for everyone, not just enthusiasts, we gotta do better.

Problem is, as other comments have rightly said, we're incentivized to do the opposite. And bad actors find it useful to encourage extreme opinions and division.

While i think something has been lost now that twitter, reddit and centralized communities are in decline, i also think this is an opportunity to build better communities with different incentives. While i don't the fediverse is going to take over the internet, i think it's part of a broader and encouraging trend.

Canoeing. I'm not an outdoorsy guy at all but everytime I see US tourists in a canoe they just spin in circles. It feels like Canadians are just born knowing.

Why not a commune IN the city?

Not saying this is you, but I feel like a lotta people who wanna live in the country also want all the city amenities - internet, garbage pickup, municipal sewage, etc.

To me, the problem isn't cities, it's late stage capitalism - gentrifying neighbourhoods, driving rents beyond reach, displacing communities. Plus its zeal for car-focused infrastructure, conspicuous consumption. All that stuff.

Anyway communal life is very appealing - I long for my college days of living in a house full of peers. Even if i'm off-base with my capitalism ruins the city argument, I think we'd all do better at coping with modern life with a wider support network.

I hear they are growing more popular in the bay area? Gideon Lichfield, outgoing editor-in-chief at Wired, mentions he spends half his year living in a commune of sorts and would like to do it full time in this podcast.

https://www.wired.com/story/have-a-nice-future-podcast-19/

You're dead right. If $$$ are Spez's priority then that's what we should target. A knock on effect is that it catches the attention of the casual redditor. I have a couple friends who read reddit but were clueless on these issues. Until the NSFW content. One DM'd me tonight

""I was on lunch, and I was like "WTF happened to my reddit feed??""

so that's working

well, only if we let it. which we prolly will.

I do like how the Verge is treating this like a real news story and not just "some weird thing on the internet"