harmonea

FOMO is a weird term to use here because it implies some anxiety that I could be seeing more stuff than I am.

I get bored sometimes. There isn't enough content here to keep me super engaged, and interesting niche subs about certain small games and whatnot are missed. I end up swapping back and forth between my front page here and my youtube recs, willing something interesting to appear.

But I'm not feeling the slightest anxiety that I'm missing some stranger's idea of wit on a site I don't go to. There's way too much internet for me to ever think I was seeing it all in the first place, so I'm more than fine with missing the latest lyric or pun comment chain or the hottest new AITA fiction.

I don't think the fediverse has this, but I'm a bit confused why so many of these comments are puzzled at why you would want it. We have fediverse twitter, fediverse insta, fediverse reddit, fediverse discord, etc -- why not fediverse facebook/myspace/carrd? Where users could just have small personal (or corporate) pages about themselves that aren't as blog/news focused on the main(user) page.

I don't even think it would be a huge stretch to implement: a big focus on user page customization with a small microblog interface taking up a portion of the screen would do it. (Disclaimer: not saying easy to create, just not that far out of reach vs everything else the fediverse has).

Oh I see.

It would have been nice to have that in the post description for those of us who aren't as willing to hand over data (even anonymized) for certain uses.

Thanks for locating it!

What's the purpose of your research? Curiosity? A student thesis? A professional paper? Are you a dev actively working on improving the fediverse?

Okay but seriously, what is this pedantry even? I wasn't trying to put forth some all-encompassing thesis of every reason people might pirate, nor do I accept that "needs to be in on all the current memes" is some reason one is entitled to media. And neither point has anything to do with the discussion we're having with OP.

Bizarre as heck tangent.

Your comparison is still really, really unclear. Are you comparing the consumption of "extra products" for vegans vs vegetarians to the consumption of "extra products" for piracy?

If so: Do you really not understand that limited physical demand differs from unlimited digital demand? If a vegetarian eats, idk, an egg a day.... that's an extra 365 eggs that had to be produced and were paid for, thus supporting the industry, when you could have hypothetically decreased demand and possibly caused a drop in production. Whereas the media consumed by pirates incur neither profit nor cost (in that if we assume they would never have paid for those goods in the first place, it isn't a lost sale). There is no production cost for there to be 1 sold copy and 1 pirated copy vs 1 sold copy only.

Though tbh, I'm just devil's advocating the vegan position here. I really think you had a handful of bad encounters with militant vegans and assume the majority of the threadiverse thinks like that. And, well... we don't? What even is this "lemmy culture"? The amount of confusion and responses that aren't addressing the point you meant to make should show you that most of us are not engaging with this on the line of thought you assumed we would.

Hey man, I'm willing to be honest about what I do. I'm not entitled to consume that media just because it exists, and I'm not going to beat around the bush about that.

I don't really understand why you're comparing these two things? One is a group of people refraining from consumption of certain goods for personal reasons - health, ethics, climate impact, whatever. The other is a group of people consuming arguably more goods than they (we tbh) deserve since we're not willing or able to pay for it for one reason or another.

A better analogy would be comparing piracy to... I don't know, a veg-eater of whatever type who still enjoys the taste of bacon and resorts to stealing it because it's better to hurt the meat industry than to pay? It's a product that person really doesn't really need and absolutely would have never paid for, yet the person still wants it and obtains it in a way that hurts the industry.

(The analogy doesn't hold up since stealing physical goods has a different impact than distributing digital copies, but it's the best I've got off the cuff)

E: okay, after reading your other comments, I'm both confident this didn't address the point you wanted and confident I don't really understand your deal well enough to do so. Both of these groups have some members who have a problem with industry practices and others who are into their chosen lifestyle for other reasons. It seems like you've made some odd decisions about which groups are most prevalent among each and are framing your premise around that, and I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on it when the premise is Like This.

Or are you trying to say veganism should be more widely accepted because "DRM is wrong" is roughly equivalent to "animal suffering is wrong" re: "industry bad"?

Corrected archive link - OP's is missing a character so it's not working

You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don't think it's a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a "thank you" - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of "YOU'RE the problem" response?

I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you're not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There's data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you're just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.

That is not good faith.

Agnosticism is a stance about epistemology, the nature of knowledge - what it's possible to know or not know. Atheism is a stance about the nature of metaphysics and the supernatural - whether you think there are gods.

You can have a stance on both. There are Gnostic Theists (there is definitely a god), Gnostic Atheists (there is definitely no god), Agnostic Theists (I believe in a god, but I accept it as belief alone), and Agnostic Atheists (I don't believe in any gods and I don't think anyone will ever prove otherwise).

Everyone who doesn't believe in any gods, grand creators, "spiritual energy that binds us all together," or what have you is an atheist. Don't gatekeep just because someone is less militant than you, especially on a post you're making out of frustration toward those more militant than you.

Can't believe you forgot the usage limits on how many tweets you can view and how many DMs you can send. I think some of those might have been walked back, but I know people who were holding back from discord because twitter DMs were enough that now rarely go there.

Also all sorts of API functionality has been killed off - embeds, RSS, bots, etc