Comments

2

go1dfish wrote

Yes and no, a lot of open source happens because the marginal cost of releasing software you've already built for your own purposes is pretty low, and there is potential to receive value back in the form of patches and testing.

This makes the model here a bit different than the traditional "tragedy of the commons." one where the tragedy is usually rather minimal; but as noted above the lack of scarcity in the resulting good is what helps to achieve this.

As quoted in the article:

The vast majority of open source software—particularly as it relates to the web—is funded through companies sponsoring developers to work on issues that matter to those companies

0

go1dfish wrote (edited )

Currently it's running on a single 99$/month server working on optimizations to reduce the requirements, it's already possible to run a non-indexing mirror at closer to that cost and after the next round of optimizations it should make running an indexer much less resource intensive as well. The site started on a $10/mo shared hosting but did outgrow that pretty quickly mostly as a result of a memory leak in a dependent package that has now been tracked down.

It's likely going to be a more intensive service in general due to its realtime/chat/msg oriented approach; but reducing the cost of contributing to the health of the network is one of my primary goals; even if the overall costs end up higher, they can be more evenly distributed among volunteers.

Edit: is raddle prepared to scale in the event of significant growth? Because that's been another priority of mine as I see it as the main failure of Voat leading to the culture as it exists there today. NAB is set up to scale horizontally to a point where it could eventually support reddit level traffic.

1

go1dfish wrote

Yep, working towards that gotten a bit sidetracked with optimization but it's all related.

Doing distributed/layered/opt-in moderation has interesting performance challenges but I'm getting pretty close to having a viable solution that will allow me to focus back on feature development.

With the most important feature development being fleshing out the moderation model to reach and exceed parity with reddit.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

0

go1dfish wrote

What world do you live in where capitalism protects limited resources?

I didn't suggest that it did; only that property rights reduces conflict over scarce resources.

Further, much of the environmental exploitation; especially as it relates to oil resources has occurred via government intervention and violence; not property rights in the general sense.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

1

go1dfish wrote

When you have finite resources and people wanting to use them in different ways it is not possible to satisfy the desires of all people.

Without some system of determining who can do conflicting things with finite resources conflict is unavoidable.

Reply to comment by /u/NAB in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

1

go1dfish wrote

Many AnCaps/Libertarians/Voluntarists view property rights as a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

Some people, myself included don't see shared information as particularly scarce. Further; without some authoritative entity/State property rights become difficult to enforce because they are essentially an artificial construction.

If you want to keep exclusive control of information; keep it secret. Otherwise it becomes quite difficult to control without some massive intimidation scheme.

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in Memelord copyright by /u/ziq

1

go1dfish wrote

There is no conflict in believing in private property rights while speaking out against the behaviors of people and how they use their property. I don't advocate State action or violence against any corporate censorship despite my vocal opposition to how pronounced it has become.

I identify as a voluntarist because I'm not primarily focused in the support of capitalism or even property rights except insofar as they are a means of reducing conflict over scarce resources.

The core of my ideology is that all interactions between people should be voluntary and without coercion. At certain monopolistic extremes private property rights can be destructive to these ends as well and represent a de-facto state.

-5

go1dfish wrote (edited )

"treating people differently based on their race" is an accurate description of criticizing someone for "cultural appropriation" based on their race.

In the case of Gwen stefani "punching up" fits sure.

But "treating people differently based on their race" is a description that also fits discrimination against minorities and I don't think "punching up" fits there.

So "punching up" is not a good term to cover the general idea of "treating people differently based on their race".

-1

go1dfish wrote

When a rich blonde girl takes from another culture, making millions from it in the process

Does the money matter? Or is such appropriation bad if a poor blonde girl identifies with and adopts a foreign culture without profit motive?

I can certainly agree that commercializing religious culture is a pretty shitty thing to do.

But I have trouble characterizing it as stealing. Ideas don't have marginal costs they are capable of spreading without limit. For the same reason that piracy is not stealing in the same sense as taking a physical possession; neither is it stealing to adopt and spread the ideas of others.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

-4

go1dfish wrote (edited )

I'll need to see examples of this supposed racial discrimination

I'm not trying to talk about any specific races here.

You reject the definition of racism as "treating people differently based on their race".

I'm asking what you would term "treating people differently based on their race" as?

And I'm saying that criticizing "cultural appropriation" based on the race of the person doing it qualifies as "treating people differently based on their race"

When people are talking about "reverse racism" (I personally hate this term myself, racism is racism IMO) they are really just saying "treating people differently based on their race" not with the implied power dynamics you associate with the term.

Do you think "treating people differently based on their race" is acceptable?

"treating people differently based on their race" is quite a lot to type; which is why I wanted to try to find a agreeable term for it such as "racial discrimination" I don't think "white fragility" works because we're talking about a practice irrespective of the races or power dynamics involved.

Many people; myself included think it is wrong to treat people differently based on their race and that's what I mean when I say racism but I'm asking your help in finding a more acceptable term for it.

-5

go1dfish wrote

You're welcome to think that, but if you argue your position using definitions of words that others disagree with you're unlikely to make much progress.

Do you think "racial discrimination" is a more accurate term for what I consider to be racism?

If you reject the common definition of racism for your own, what do you call what other people define as racist? That is to say is racial discrimination a more acceptable term to describe this? Or what would you call treating people differently based on race in general irrespective of power dynamics?

-3

go1dfish wrote (edited )

My understanding of racism is treating people differently based on their race.

This article suggests a different definition of racism; a definition that if you believe it seems to imply that treating people different based on their race is only bad if done from a position of power.

My view is that it is wrong to stereotype people or treat them differently based on aspects of their person they had no control or choice in.

I think my understanding (and afaik the most widely accepted definition of racism) is still useful as a definition; and that you might need a more precise term for "racial privilege + power" to better distinguish between racial discrimination that is acceptable vs racial discrimination that is unacceptable in your view.

-1

go1dfish wrote

taking people's sacred cultural artifacts, presenting them as her own innovations

That's the thing though, I don't think Stefani has ever attempted to present or adaptations of other cultures as her own original innovations.

cheapening them by turning them into a trendy fashion choice so that she can profit.

Commercializing culture, especially that is religious in nature is a criticism I'm much more sympathetic to.

no because the power dynamics are completely different.

Isn't that a fundamentally racist view though?

The idea that something is bad when one racial group does it but neutral or good when another race does?

I see a lot of racist whites bemoan the existence of minorities in sports they believe are reflective of their culture and I think it's bad to be exclusionary this way regardless of which races are involved.

Races are not sports teams or political parties. People don't choose to be born a certain race, and many people don't focus on the race they are born into as a core aspect of their identity. I think it's wrong to assume that the actions of an individual is bad simply because of the race they are born into when another person of a different race doing such a thing does not receive such criticism.

Do you think it is appropriate to use force (whether that be the government or individual violence) to stop what you view as cultural appropriation?

0

go1dfish wrote

this sort of “borrowing” is exploitative because it robs minority groups of the credit they deserve.

In the case of Gwen Stefani, the cultural influences of what she is appropriating are not hidden and are still widely known. If you adopt Indian culture and attribute those bits of culture to the Indian people doesn't that alleviate the issue?

Art and music forms that originated with minority groups come to be associated with members of the dominant group.

Is this only a problem in one direction? Or is it also considered cultural appropriation when a minority group embraces and dominates culture that originated with whites?

For example basketball: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball#Creation Is it cultural appropriation for non-whites to play basketball? And if so; is that still problematic?

-1

go1dfish wrote

Currently the main difference is that the other peers are outdated software wise relevant to mine; none has set out to strongly differentiate itself on matters of policy yet.

https:///blubit.space has focused on a reimplementation of the UI not using any reddit code.

1

go1dfish wrote

Thanks for the feedback, things should have improved a good bit if you want to give it another try.

It is lighter; but still not possible to contribute without JS yet and logins are still a bit buggy.

Constantly working to improve the software and PRs are welcome.

0

go1dfish wrote

This ^

Arguing that coercion is being used for the wrong ends is not a valid defense.

If you accept the violence of government; and especially if you attempt to direct it to your own benefit you are absolutely responsible for the disastrous effects of that violence and coercion.