Thanks for sharing your view

How so little has changed…

Basically in a nutshell this guy got stuck under some ice, shat out a poop, and (allegedly) used it to hack his way out. He freed himself with shit.

Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it’s ethical or not. The debate over whether it’s feasible is a separate debate entirely. I asked if it’s ethical/moral.

https://fieldethos.com/shit-gets-real-in-the-arctic-literally/

Meta had potential, and they squandered it. Just like so many others. Social media down the drain.

Meta is pissing me off rn

No, but it’s a good explanation to why I’m not gonna give a crap what happens to the platform

It’s not now, but given the signs, I perceive that the fediverse may one day become much more like other social media platforms that it tries to differentiate itself from. I doubt it will be popular if that happens

I didn’t say it bothered me, just pointing out how Lemmy is becoming more ‘social media’-like. Plus, I’m quitting the platform in a short time anyway so it won’t make a difference to me.

Oh dear, hope it doesn’t get banned

There are days when I wonder, given the nature of the concept has changed so much, is it even really ‘social media’ anymore? And if not, at what point did it stop being social media (as it were then, at least)?

Oh boy, hope I don’t get banned for writing a ‘popular’ opinion lol

Yes but if cars didn’t exist, road rage would not exist (at least, not as we know it) regardless of whether the car was the root cause of road rage or not. You see my point: social media is a link in the chain that leads to toxicity, the same way that owning a car leads to road rage (as we experience it). All I’m saying is that social media is a bad invention not because it causes toxicity but because it exacerbates it by providing us with an outlet. I’m not saying you’re wrong btw, just clarifying

I get that. I get that it’s the humans who are the core issue. What I’m staying is that social media provides a method or outlet for being vindictive (and that’s just one issue of social media. Others include data privacy, potential criminal activity etc.) in fact, I would argue that it is now the core outlet humans use that brings out the nastiness towards one another. And as I said in the post, no it isn’t the only outlet, it’s just a prominent one.

Yet, they’ve added application forms to most of Lemmy’s instances, not sure why exactly, but it’s one step towards becoming more and more like the other restrictive social media platforms go for. One day, you might be having to provide your phone number to sign up to it, or worse…

What I think of downvotes to this:

Also thanks for agreeing!

Have you ever read about the K-19 sub disaster? I like to contrast the two examples:

When the sub began to experience a meltdown, the captain got suicidal thoughts:

“At one point, I thought of going down to my cabin, drawing my pistol and finishing all my problems at once,” he said.

But rather than go himself into the reactor, he got ‘volunteers’ to sacrifice their lives to go in and repair.

Also, if you read the entire comments section, you’ll see that others have in fact already mentioned that example.

I know. It’s a fair point and I do agree: if you knew it would be less effective than something else, it would be unethical because you’re not doing the best you can, which would put more lives at danger when you could have a higher chance to save more

Not at all. Hey, if you can link effectiveness to the ethics, fantastic. All I was saying was I was more focused on the ethics rather than the effectiveness, which I do think is a debate on its own. However, if you can make the case to justify the ethics in relation to the effectiveness, I’ll definitely read it.