• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s on me, I’m also having an extremely similar conversation with someone else specifically about that

      What you did say was:

      I’m not saying there should be no internet. I am only saying maybe some restraint would be advantageous for everyone.

      So what I meant to say In my last comment was:

      What does any of that have to do with the restraint with regards to the Internet?

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Okay, sure? That was always allowed. Again, “People should behave differently than they do” without any proposed method of bringing about whatever “differently” is, is just impotent platitude. That’s why I keep reiterating “incentivize or force”. Without one of those two pressures, people will continue to make individual decisions about their behavior, including which things they choose to do on the Internet, like they have been doing the whole time. Some will choose to do things on the Internet which can be done sufficiently other ways, others will choose to use simpler technologies.

          When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I feel like a broken record:

              Yes, obviously, people are allowed to make their own choices. Not using the flashiest new toys and services is allowed. Acknowledging that fact is not useful. You telling people what they should and shouldn’t do is not going to have a societal effect.

              If you would like to propose some regulatory or incentive policy to nudge people toward simpler technologies, then that is a useful conversation. But just stating your opinion? Old man yells at cloud.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not saying that your opinion shouldn’t exist, but some restraint would be advantageous.

                  Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

                  Some opinions provide valuable hypotheses which can promote thoughtful discussion regardless of their validity, like “A value-added tax would benefit the working class”. Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious, like “Israelis and Palestinians should just get along”.

                  Endless promotion of the latter is probably one of the most unnecessary uses of the Internet, muttering to oneself alone at home is a sufficient technology for that purpose.