227
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
227 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My first comment has two statements if not three. The first is about social media and social lives. And, we have to learn that these aren't the same. They have different definitions and are two separate things.
The second is about private companies and that we don't have to put our social lives in the hand of private companies. The article is about Meta.
Now, Lemmy and Mastodon are different as they are federate social media. They don't follow the second statement but the first is still true. And people have to keep this in mind when they use Lemmy and Mastodon. They must differentiate between social media and lives. If people use these two, they only avoid the private companies.
Now, Lemmy and Mastodon is a ridiculous small fraction of social media users. The vast majority relies on private companies. And people put their social lives there. This is an issues.
You're speaking about accessibility of the safe space. It's easier to access a social media and use it as a safe space. But, it doesn't opposite with the fact that social live and social media are different.
Safe space was a thing before the event of social media. Social media helps people discovering their differences and accepting these. This is access to the information and not social live. I didn't write people have to avoid social media.
Before the wide spreading of the internet, people would move to a different town, will reach specific places for safe spaces. They were free or used networks and didn't rely on private companies like Meta. This is a huge difference.
By "free social media", did you mean "no-cost" or "unhindered"? Because in my experience, at least 95% of people are completely incapable of judging their own online safety (especially in regard to the "no-cost" social media sites) just from their lack of technical background knowledge. I do not see why any of the stated groups should be exempt from that?