You can do this for yourself at Volcano national Park in Hawai’i. If they still let people into the lava field. We got close enough to poke the new lava with sticks. It’s tolerable unless you make the mistake of standing directly over it. Also if you go take flashlights, it’s no fun trying to navigate a lava field by moonlight.
Their goal is not to get you to help Maui. Their goal is to get you to subsidize their tax evasion. It’s a massive loophole in the tax system which is why every rich asshole has a charity or foundation these days.
They do actually allow protests. Western media was having a fucking field day earlier this year talking about how China had bowed to pressure from protests regarding their covid policy.
You mean the revolt that happened after people burned to death in their own homes when the state locked them in? The revolt that state censors still tried to remove from the internet? The one police cracked down on?
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
“the exception that proves the rule” doesn’t just mean any evidence against your point is actually evidence for your point. it means that something is only notable because it’s usually rare.
they also repealed the hong kong extradition law in response to those protests. Although admittedly once they fulfilled the demands of the protest and the protest continued they then cracked down more
Did you know that Deng Xiaoping, the leader of China during the Tiananmen Square protests, resigned from all official positions shortly after the protests? I don’t recall Nixon doing anything similar over Kent State, however.
:::spoiler Excerpt from Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds
Some leftists and others fall back on the old stereotype of power hungry Reds who pursue power for powers sake without regard for actual social goals. If true, one wonders why, in country after country, these Reds side with the poor and powerless often at great risk and sacrifice to themselves, rather than reaping the rewards that come with serving the well-placed.
For decades, many left-leaning writers and speakers in the United States have felt obliged to establish their credibility by indulging in anticommunist and anti-Soviet genuflection, seemingly unable to give a talk or write an article or book review on whatever political subject without injecting some anti-Red sideswipe. The intent was, and still is, to distance themselves from the Marxist-Leninist Left.
Adam Hochschild, a liberal writer and publisher, warned those on the Left who might be lackadaisical about condemning existing communist societies that they “weaken their credibility” (Guardian, 5/23/84). In other words, to be credible opponents of the cold war, we first had to join in cold war condemnations of communist societies. Ronald Radosh urged that the peace movement purge itself of communists so that it not be accused of being communist (Guardian, 3/16/83). If I understand Radosh: To save ourselves from anticommunist witchhunts, we should ourselves become witchhunters.
Purging the Left of communists became a longstanding practice, having injurious effects on various progressive causes. For instance, in 1949 some twelve unions were ousted from the CIO because they had Reds in their leadership. The purge reduced CIO membership by some 1.7 million and seriously weakened its recruitment drives and political clout. In the late 1940s, to avoid being “smeared” as Reds, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a supposedly progressive group, became one of the most vocally anticommunist organizations.
The strategy did not work. ADA and others on the Left were still attacked for being communist or soft on communism by those on the Right. Then and now, many on the Left have failed to realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society will be Red-baited by conservative elites whether they are communists or not. For ruling interests, it makes little difference whether their wealth and power is challenged by “communist subversives” or “loyal American liberals.” All are lumped together as more or less equally abhorrent.
Even when attacking the Right, left critics cannot pass up an opportunity to flash their anticommunist credentials. So Mark Green writes in a criticism of President Ronald Reagan that “when presented with a situation that challenges his conservative catechism, like an unyielding Marxist-Leninist, [Reagan] will change not his mind but the facts.” While professing a dedication to fighting dogmatism “both of the Right and Left,” individuals who perform such de rigueur genuflections reinforce the anticommunist dogma. Red-baiting leftists contributed their share to the climate of hostility that has given U.S. leaders such a free hand in waging hot and cold wars against communist countries and which even today makes a progressive or even liberal agenda difficult to promote.
A prototypic Red-basher who pretended to be on the Left was George Orwell. In the middle of World War II, as the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against the Nazi invaders at Stalingrad, Orwell announced that a “willingness to criticize Russia and Stalin is the test of intellectual honesty. It is the only thing that from a literary intellectual’s point of view is really dangerous” (Monthly Review, 5/83). Safely ensconced within a virulently anticommunist society, Orwell (with Orwellian doublethink) characterized the condemnation of communism as a lonely courageous act of defiance. Today, his ideological progeny are still at it, offering themselves as intrepid left critics of the Left, waging a valiant struggle against imaginary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist hordes.
Sorely lacking within the U.S. Left is any rational evaluation of the Soviet Union, a nation that endured a protracted civil war and a multinational foreign invasion in the very first years of its existence, and that two decades later threw back and destroyed the Nazi beast at enormous cost to itself. In the three decades after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets made industrial advances equal to what capitalism took a century to accomplish—while feeding and schooling their children rather than working them fourteen hours a day as capitalist industrialists did and still do in many parts of the world. And the Soviet Union, along with Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, and Cuba, provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world, including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa.
Left anticommunists remained studiously unimpressed by the dramatic gains won by masses of previously impoverished people under communism. Some were even scornful of such accomplishments. I recall how in Burlington Vermont, in 1971, the noted anticommunist anarchist, Murray Bookchin, derisively referred to my concern for “the poor little children who got fed under communism” (his words).
Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anticommunists as “Soviet apologists” and “Stalinists,” even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society. Our real sin was that unlike many on the Left we refused to uncritically swallow U.S. media propaganda about communist societies. Instead, we maintained that, aside from the well-publicized deficiencies and injustices, there were positive features about existing communist systems that were worth preserving, that improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people in meaningful and humanizing ways. This claim had a decidedly unsettling effect on left anticommunists who themselves could not utter a positive word about any communist society (except possibly Cuba) and could not lend a tolerant or even courteous ear to anyone who did.
Saturated by anticommunist orthodoxy, most U.S. leftists have practiced a left McCarthyism against people who did have something positive to say about existing communism, excluding them from participation in conferences, advisory boards, political endorsements, and left publications. Like conservatives, left anticommunists tolerated nothing less than a blanket condemnation of the Soviet Union as a Stalinist monstrosity and a Leninist moral aberration.
Do you guys actually write this shit out or are you ctrl + v from some source? Every time i see hexbears they write up a whole journal article as a comment that most likely nobody is going to read.
…I said “Excerpt from Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds,” because it’s, uhh, an excerpt from Michael Parenti’sBlackshirts and Reds.
I copied it from a pdf of the book I cited because I found it relevant. Really, if you want to fully understand how fascism and communism are different and not comparable, you should read the whole book. I know, I probably sound like a crazy person for suggesting that people read a whole entire book to better understand politics instead of going off vibes, but that’s just how I roll I guess.
I think a part of good, honest discourse is recognizing and respecting the time of the person you are talking with.
If you are going to respond with 11 paragraphs quoted from a book, you should preempt it by saying something to diffuse it. Something like, “oh man, this is super long but actually quite beneficial. I wrote a tldr though at the end in case you don’t have time to read the whole thing.”
I use this site while I’m at work. I literally don’t have time to read all of that lol.
That’s why I put it behind a spoiler to avoid clogging up the thread.
I put in the time of reading the book in the first place, then I remembered a relevant bit so I went back and looked through the book to try to find it, read through it again to make sure it was actually relevant, edited it because it was from a pdf and had wierd line breaks, and considered which parts were relevant to include and whether I should omit some of the examples. I cited that book not only because it expressed what I wanted to say, but also because it’s written in a modern style that’s easier to read than many socialist works.
I guess I’m just used to an environment on Hexbear where people are more receptive towards reading relevant theory and some of us actually read not just posts and excerpts, but whole entire books. Maybe I should’ve just posted Pig Poop Balls instead.
You don’t have to click the spoiler. It’s literally one line you can easily scroll past, but some people who have more time might find it interesting.
Anyway it’s a response to a pretty low-effort, unoriginal meme, the whole “proportional time” thing cuts both ways. I’ve added more to making these comments a meaningful, intelligent dialogue than OP did.
You’re just complaining to complain at this point. Literally just scroll past if it’s such a problem. All I did was lead you to water, I’m not forcing you to drink.
You choosing to die on this hill just makes me think of this lol
I’m just saying to package the words in a way that is comprehensible to the person reading it, and likely that they will.
I honestly don’t doubt that there was some good content in it. But the audience you are talking to doesn’t want the communication you are giving in that format. It comes off as annoying, and therefore not effective in communicating the message you want to deliver.
I’m over here delivering free marketing lessons to tankies lol.
I’m gonna go touch grass now. Good luck with stuff
Marketing lessons, lmao. You certainly have the intellectual depth of a puddle, my guy.
No one gives a shit about how much appeal our posting has for you. We’re not trying to sell you anything. We’re not even trying to cajole you into being a little less anti-intellectual and wilfully ignorant.
We’d rather just slap you down with a concise well cited historical source, just to make it abundantly clear to everyone else that you’re an ignorant intellectually lazy non-entity who has no business getting involved. Stick to your monosyllabic social media communications, replying to the latest Facebook memes, and saying all the classic lines from Reddit.
We’re not trying to get you to change, honestly I think you’re much more entertaining this way. Only semi-literate and clearly too big for your boots. Please continue.
So what I’m getting is that you need to be sat down in front of a screen and have things explained to you in short, simple sentences, or else you panic and bolt.
No you come to social media to jump into threads about complex topics like history, philosophy, and politics…and then engage only thru simple thought-terminating cliches.
When someone quotes a relevant passage from a history book, you arrogantly dismiss it for being completely inappropriate for a “social media” site. What is appropriate here, of course, is you weighing in on these complex topics with the correct form of communication – an incoherent series of monosyllabic words strung together.
Now that is productive communication.
I wish you luck on your continuing mission to convince yourself that you’re the articulate master of communication here, actually.
Say what you want, 11 paragraphs is objectively longer than what most people want to read on social media. 11 paragraphs is just annoying and unproductive.
You can see I’m right because literally everyone who isn’t a hexbear is like wtf is this. It is bad communication.
That would be accepting it as good communication. My point is to not do that, because it is not good communication. I agree with you though, I could have.
Honest question, do hexbears look out for other hexbear comments so you guys can slap eachother in the ass? Ive never seen a hexbear comment on its own where it was <2 hexbears in a comment chain.
Lol there’s way more of us than there are of you anti-reading shitheads. And of course when I see such aggressive anti-intellectual bullshit, I feel compelled to mock the moron who’s lauding the virtues of being moronic.
I’m putting time into supporting good communication. Telling someone you don’t respect them or their time is also not an effective way to communicate either btw. Thanks for showing your cards though.
I’m gonna go touch some grass now, good luck with stuff
Cool. I imagine I would agree with a lot of what it says. I haven’t been talking about the contents of the writing though. The only point I’m trying to make in this entire thing is that copying and pasting 11 paragraphs is bad communication.
Sorry i am dumb and cant read good. You see I grew up in the streets of Zacapa where a poor little brown child like myself cant get a fine white privileged education like yourself. You are going to have lower the IQ of this conversation for me so I can understand
Hi, I’m not @boboblaw, but it seems you’re having some difficulty understanding where you are right now. I understand object permeance and talking to multiple people may be confusing for some. What you are on right now is called a Public Internet Forum. This is a type of forum where anyone with an internet connection and a functioning web browser can participate in all manner of discussion. In this discussion in particular, I was making a joke about how dumb you are taking a intellectual posture on the internet while clearly having absolutely nothing of remote intellectual interest backing it. Now you might be saying “Now wait a minute here Mr. Chungus, but you aren’t the person I was talking to earlier!”
And you know what internet user? You’re right. With the magic of the internet, any number of internet users can communicate with you, not just one! You can tell when a different internet user is communicating with you by checking either their Profile Picture or their Username, which are distinct indicators of who you’re talking to
If you have any other questions about using the internet, feel free to ask them now
I think you missed the rest of the signature with your location and phone number. We here on the internets are lucky to have someone as thoughtful and respectful as you to show us around.
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
Fun fact: the word count of the people shidding and pissing and cumming about how long this excerpt is now exceeds the word count of the excerpt itself.
Gonna paste a comment I made a couple weeks ago. Seems relevant again, both because of the accusation levied against hexbears and also because Parenti.
Oh a hexbear. … You lot only have overly simplistic takes.
When we respond to blatant ignorance with carefully chosen wording, backing up our position with citations and links, and calmly explaining the nuance of complex geopolitical realities, we get accused of “always throwing walls of text at people.” When we answer that same ignorance with short and pithy responses, we “only have simplistic takes.”
There’s no winning with you simple-minded dronies, but I guess there never is when one side can just make shit up that fits their vibes-based outlook on the world.
It’s about people’s skin color. I’m calling you a racist. Not helping your cause with ‘cee cee pee’ either.
White people are socialist and good when they have capitalism but offer some social programs with taxes. Brown and yellow people who dispossess slave owners of their land and redistribute it are fascists with red paint.
They were the only one who used the term. They might’ve been calling someone else out, but they did it using racist terminology that no one else was using. In doing so they sacrificed the high ground they’re attempting to lord over from.
When I first saw a hexbear user say it, it took me a moment to figure out what they meant. I was like “oh yeah, yellow was a racist way of referring to Asian people, from like 50 years ago”. Way to keep racism alive, congratulations.
I met a Hexbear in person once, they were DISGUSTING and VILE They smelled like beans and mushrooms and when I shook their hand they gave me a small rat and told me it was “one for the road”.
They had green skin like a goblin and had a shirt that said “Xi is my god”.
I didn’t feel safe. Be careful out there, and lock your doors too because I hear they steal your passive income.
Literally nowhere on earth has any substantial Trotskyites outside of maybe the UK and scattered parts of America. The closest thing to Trotskite revolutions were some contingents of the Spanish Civil War and one very odd Posadist group mentioned by Che during the Cuban Revolution. You’re allowed to like Trotsky’s writings, that’s fine, but Trostkyism itself isn’t anything of a serious movement.
“What do you mean I don’t know anything about politics in the United American States?! I know all about the Party of the Republic and the Democracy Party!”
Class will always exist but it’s been proven that a strong middle class is a sign of a bountiful economy that actually works for it’s workers.
The shrink of the American middle class is exactly what’s caused most of the economic issues in America.
We allowed our middle class to be destroyed in an attempt to raise a few of those people to the top. Because upper middle class people were duped into believing they were closer to being rich than they were to being poor
Class should absolutely be something we strive to abolish. The idea that some people deserve to benefit disproportionally from the workings of our society is nonsense.
I think they’re arguing that the bigger the middle, the better. It seems like you two might be arguing the same thing. Making everyone middle is functionally equivalent to removing classes
Yeah but striving for a “middle” class implies the existence of an upper and lower class. If you’re already in fantasy land (uncorrupt government) why not make the fantasy as ideal as possible? Answer: for conservatives the ideal is having an upper and lower class because conservatives seem to inherently think they deserve more than other members of society, even if the reality is that they’re lower class, they need the existence of an upper class so they have someone’s boots to lick. Since they’re just one big idea away from being upper class obviously.
Didn’t mean to seem argumentative and my response was probably better meant for the parent of your comment but yours had some things I wanted to mention too. Sorry if it seemed aggressive.
Yeah but striving for a “middle” class implies the existence of an upper and lower class.
There is, and always has been. You’re putting the cart before the horse. We are so far removed from removing class, it’s not worth discussing. Expanding the middle class is an achievable goal, and works towards what you’re talking about.
A good reminder that liberalism is based around unfounded assumptions and charlatan, unimaginative predictions of the future. Everyone used to think kings were inevitable, too.
Classes will always exist if there are limited resources. Which there currently is and always will be for the foreseeable future. The gaps, size, number of, and mobility between them can vary though. But scarcity will always create at least two classes.
Did you know we throw away more food than it would take to feed the hungry? That there are more empty homes than homeless people? Capitalism incentivizes scarcity, so it is artificially created. The only thing stopping us from achieving post scarcity immediately is working out the logistics, but those in power don’t want that to happen, as they are currently high up in society.
As an extension to this comment, digital media is a perfect example of pure artificial scarcity. You can at least imagine a world where food or homes are scarce, it’s not our world, but it can be imagined. The same is not true of distributing digital media, and yet it’s still artificially scarce.
Without scarcity in capitalism things lack value. That is extremely problematic.
I mean, basic necessities? Sure. But the logistics on homes is far from just "we need to work it out." On top of that, beyond food and shelter, there are a ton of other things that are indeed scarce. Even land is scarce and I don't mean to just own. Like there are plots of land that are more desirable than others and people want those places. There's no logistics that will solve "everyone will live where they want." And let's even just look at computer chips. They're literally scarce. There's so much more than just feeding people enough to survive (cause I'm doubting everyone wants to be vegan cause that's the kind of food we have more than enough of, and not even for a well balanced diet, just to not starve to death).
So no, some things are "manufactured" scarcity. But there is plenty beyond just that shallow level of thinking that is actually scarce.
“post-scarcity” in this context doesn’t mean “everyone gets everything they want whenever they want it”. Maybe I want to own a planet, but there aren’t enough planets to go around, and nobody actually believes in a future where everyone can get their own planet.
When talking about these things, it’s best not to assume the most ridiculous interpretation of what the other person is saying. e.g instead of reading “post-scarcity” to mean “everyone gets everything all the time no matter what”, read it to mean “everyone gets what they need”.
also for what it’s worth, I’ve been an ethical vegan for several years after being a die-hard meat eater and literally convincing people close to me to move away from veganism/vegetarianism exactly for health reasons (I had the same misconception you did about veganism). After actually going vegan, doing absolutely no meal planning, no exercise, no calorie counting, still eating mostly frozen food and pickup, my blood pressure as a lean 6’1 mid 20s male has gone from pre-hypertension to normal levels. I get my blood checked regularly and I’m far healthier than I was when I was downing popeyes, jersey mikes, and five guys several times a week. And I’m not just eating salads or whatever, I’m usually having vegan buffalo “chicken” or beyond burgers.
I don’t advocate veganism based on health benefits (veganism is an ethical philosophy), but vegan diets are baseline much healthier than the baseline for non-vegan diets. You can’t go as wrong with them as the vast majority of Americans do with their diets.
Yeah, it’s so strange that people confuse you with a Kremlin bot when you repeatedly spew the same fucking bullshit talking points as the bots themselves.
Bruh Idk how you got convinced there are so many bots around. Like, sure, if you write off everything that differs from the nato line of thought as bots, then sure, believe what you want. But ti me that’s just absurd. I assume that people I interact with are actual humans, even if their opinions suck ass. But to be so far up your own ass, as to not even acknowledge that people can think other things than you without them being some evil, heinous bot is just fuckin stupid
Meanwhile, there are literally bots that easily replace humans.
Its weird that someones life is only dedicated to be negative about one thing. And especially because Russia and China love to manipulate and do everything to convince people that what they are doing is great, its not unlikely they are bots. Especially with LLM its very easy to create a realistic bot.
Thinking that they are bots is more likely than not because of these facts.
Well, I guess I shall stop my propaganda and just accept that there are literal communities that are hardcore china or russia fans because of the leftism.
There are reasons why Elon Musk doesn’t feel alone while having no gf. /j
You know, I’ve read exactly one comment from you, ReakDuck, and It would be a bit silly if I assumed from this single comment that your entire life to this point has been paranoid whingeing about Russian bots.
“Russia and China love to manipulate and do everything to convince people that what they are doing is great”
If it’s a matter of propaganda, I hope you understand that America is perfectly capable of churning out plenty of absolute pig shit on its own. All large nations with their own media ecosystems employ propaganda as a means of placation, diversion, and general control. Do you worry about the people who agree with you being bots, too? Aren’t your online peers just as likely to be bots? Do you think your particular party or associates don’t employ the same trickery as everyone else? How have they stayed competitive?
Furthermore, what proof would you require to know I’m not a bot? No amount of personal information is beyond manufacturing. I could even send you a social security number and valid identification and you could say I stole it. Do you see where I’m going with this? That rationale of yours is a catch-all justification of complete dismissal. One can protect themselves from any dissenting opinions if they can convince themselves that the other person writing to them is a bot. There’s nothing they can say or do to prove such an assertion wrong short of showing up at your house and shitting on your lawn.
I believe you should challenge the rhetoric being presented to you instead of protecting your own through frivolous dismissals, but I don’t know why I’ve wasted all my time writing this response to a lib bot.
I’m pleasantly surprised by your response, honestly. I understand the temptation to make such arguments, and I’d be lying if I told you that astroturfing and shit like that didn’t happen, but hard leftists like us are small in number in American spaces and that level of bullshittery generally requires some alignment with corporate interests to find the resources. We’re just a bunch of regular people from many different corners who are really passionate about our opinions for a variety of reasons. Hope I wasn’t too aggro with my comment, and hope the rest of your day is a nice one
I’m happy to see you’ve accepted we’re not bots or something, but
that there are literal communities that are hardcore china or russia fans because of the leftism.
Is just a wrong assumption. The point is to never stop the critique. It’s just that we a) accept the nuance in and the reality of the Ukrainian conflict rather than repeat the lines NATO feeds the west through established media (doesn’t mean we’re fans of putin, but since the start of the conflict any nuance has been labeled as ‘Russia apologia’. Russia is a neoliberal, capitalist state and nowhere does this align with my ideals, doesn’t mean ima start referring to Russian people as ‘orcs’). And b) yeah while china absolutely has its shortcomings (like the disparity between rural and urban China), it is doing some pretty cool stuff too, you should read up about it. This all is of course combined with the knowledge that the west is the primary purpetrator of imperialism, death, desease, hunger, poverty and instability in the global south, while not even being able to channel the stolen wealth to its citizens in order to make some billionairs even richer.
I see people less being hardcore and instead just see them here as people with different opinions. (some are hardcore leftist, but on the other hand reddit you see often hardcore american fans or karens)
You don’t know my hate about america, I definetly hate this system and especially as a German guy who just loves free Open Source Software hate the idea that my school forces pupils to use their bad and unprofessional products compared to free open source ones because they are partners and MC wants money hard as fuck.
But whats tempting me is when I hear how gay people were seen as an illness. Many things that I heard just heard about camps where people with wrong religions are put there which aligns to the German Hitlers conzentration camps. Some things are definetly nice and a good approach from China but youtube debunkers show many opposite truths and gaslights. Democracy like EU is trying to and forces everyone to have the same rights for every human, is what is missing in China. I guess each country can decide by themselves if they are left or right, its just about this ground rules that should not be broken because one president wants to become evil.
I absolutely do not agree that people in Europe have equal rights. You just need to look at how migrants or refugees are treated, and that’s just one example. Recent protests in France also didn’t start because they were treated so equally. Hell, the working class is losing rights left right and center as we speak.
I didn’t get “convinced there are so many bots around,” you absolute idiot. My point was only that if and when idiots like you use talking points that are identical to those coming out of Putin’s Kremlin, people can be forgiven for mistaking you for a bot.
What part about this do you not understand? How can I dumb it down enough for you?
When it comes to media attraction, what they call themselves (labels) don’t really matter that much. It’s the praise of strong men, authority, that crosses all mythological media systems. Be it bowing down to a burning bush story, Fox News, or Kremlin.
Cynically mass influencing opinion is immoral. Using automated software to do that is doubly immoral.
The fact that Russians are doing this is not controversial, it is widely documented. Whether they’re doing it here is perhaps questionable, but then again, Lemmy and its APIs are free to use so why wouldn’t they.
Vocaloid is voice synthesizer software. They’ve actually been around for a while, there’s a lot of artists who will sample them for vocals and mix that into original music.
its really wild that the russians are programming transgender communist robots, maybe they need some critical support now, maybe theyll make real catgirls next
Isn’t that up to the creators though. If world is their home instance, why would they create elsewhere? Not being able to create communities would kind of defeat the purpose.
If creators want engagement, they will create on subs with more uptime. That will likely be world in the future, when hardened. The ddos attacks aren’t good for Lemmy now, but it should iron out some wrinkles in the long run for all instances. I think the world admins are doing a great job, both technically and communication wise.
I think you put too much stock into the ddos explanation. I’m not saying it’s not a thing, but there are bigger issues that it seems won’t be resolved before Lemmy 1.0
Regarding your first question, tf is my home but I have created communities on different instances. Some instances because the community fits the instance, some because I like the URL. I figure it’s best to decentralise as much as possible.
As to your last point, I think some of what the admins at world have done is tremendous and I celebrate their commitment to world, but there’s limitations to the software, as they well know and ultimately this is a decentralised platform of which loads of little instances are supposed to make up the larger whole.
I kind of expected some people to start instances for mostly just making accounts (some of which I have seen), and for other people to make instances just for community hosting and disallow account creation (and afaik this hasn’t been done to any appreciable degree). I’m not sure this is even possible or functionally useful with the way lemmy currently works for community creation and stuff, so maybe that’s why it didn’t happen.
Honestly I even expected some instances to pop up with the sole intent and purpose of serving one community, but even stuff like the startrek instance have account creation available.
Maybe it’s because lemmy is so new for people. Niche instances would rather host accounts than scare users away in an effort to get them to sign up elsewhere.
Well that would explain why there isn’t a general use community only instance. Honestly that feels like a feature that should exist, while still leaving “local only” as an instance setting for people who like it that way.
Still seems odd for instances with a specific set of premade communities with new ones disabled to worry about hosting accounts, like the startrek one.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.