Mate I think people are just kinda lazy and don't really care that much about privacy relative to ease of use and the presence of people they're interested in.
@BraveSirZaphod In that case, both of your hunches are right, no matter the Curb-Stomp Battle we indeed are facing in the name of the Internet's future path.
1 part 'Meta users 'already have' an account so getting into it is easy', mixed with 1 part 'The slightest possibility of inconvenience (like having to choose a Mastodon server) acts as a deterrent to most people when alternative means are available'.
Marketing. The reason it's called a hype train is because everyone wants to get hitched to an engine that's already moving forward. Threads hit the ground running because Meta files it with money. Mastadon is a slow moving beast.
Because Twitter replacement only works if it gets critical mass and Mastadon is not going to win that fight. You’re never going to see cities switch to putting notices on mastadon, but you might see them end up on Threads.
I wouldn’t say “never”. I’d say decentralised social media grows more slowly but it’s only a matter of time before threads does its own enshittification and there’s another mass exodus to Mastodon. Sites that don’t do enshittification because they aren’t centralised and corporate won’t have that kind of exodus, and will grow over time.
If they become so ubiquitous that they’re the de facto standard, then cities will put their notices on them. You’ll probably get official civic instances for notices, maybe hosted on their regular website domains.
I mean unless corporate social media finds some other way to subvert activitypub that’s more effective than “look at me I have money for developers and advertising”, then I don’t see this trend changing. Corporate platforms don’t seem capable of learning anything from their repeated failures, which is really strange. I think it happens because their hierarchies are inherently insulated against learning anything.
Must suck to work under that guy. The posts referenced in the article make him look unhinged and unprofessional. How do you even report back to work after shit talking your coworkers publicly?
It's because it is backed by an already-known company that has made it big in the social media space. I personally would love to see what it would be like with #META making #Threads join the #Fediverse
… is this satire? Why the fuck would you give four years of warning for managers to document “a slow accumulation of poor performance” and other bullshit to shit can pro-union employees. A large strike takes coordination, but four years is ridiculous.
Yeah, they are just letting the companies know that they will be ready for the next round and that they aren't going to accept less than their value like they were in past negotiations.
4 years seems reasonable to me. It takes most organizations six months to do literally anything outside the status quo. A general strike is an attempt to organize a coalition of federations of organizations.
Why the fuck would you give four years of warning for managers to document “a slow accumulation of poor performance” and other bullshit to shit can pro-union employees.
This is the reality of striking. The threat and build up to the strike are just as important as the actual strike, because it’s about more than just not going to work; it involves complex and wide-ranging logistical question, from how to support the strikers (otherwise corps can just wait you out) to how to decide on a single list of demands.
The very real threats you describe are what make outspoken union advocates awesome and brave people that we should all look up to, and it’s why we all have a responsibility to express solidarity and never cross a picket line. Together we bargain; alone we beg!
The reasoning you described can be summed up very simply: UAW doesn’t want to strike, they want changes. And they hope the threat alone is enough to get them.
I know you seemed to have gotten the gist for why it’s been announced so far out, but there’s some other things at play here.
Actual general strikes are illegal under the Taft-Hartley act
US unions generally engage in contract negotiations at different times, and set the specific date the contract expires during the negotiation
In a country of 333 million people, a general strike will take A LOT of planning. Even if only 10% of the country went on strike, it would easily be the largest strike in world history. The entire economy will stop and people will need to be taken care of.
Even if only 10% of the country went on strike, it would easily be the largest strike in world history. The entire economy will stop and people will need to be taken care of.
I am not brash enough to assert any prediction, but such an event as you describe would be momentus, of coordinating protection and distribution on so massive a scale, completely alternative to the systems of the establishment. A successful demonstration of such kind would be transformative in our culture, producing an unprecedented expansion of collectively perceived horizons of possibility for the future.
Absolutely! A strike that large could result in a syndicalist revolution. Laying the groundwork to support that many people in a socialist framework would be an incredible feat, comparable to the Paris commune within that historical context
I imagine part of it is to try and take the time to gather as much support as possible, likely to include re-educating ground level bootlicker employees who hate unions and their own self interests.
Read the article. The UAW has just signed a ~5 year contract, expiring in 2028. He’s calling for other unions, between now and then, to align their contract expirations with the UAW’s. This is not something that’s possible to do in a short period of time, because it relies upon various other union contracts ending, and realistically by the time we get to 2026/2027 no union is going to sign a sub-2 year contract.
It’s kind of dumb, I kind of think they’re doing it for PR, but it also is a reasonable strategy.
404media.co
Oldest