Then it’s not a non-capitalist economy.
Capital can be privately owned including by individuals. For example, an individual could own a factory and rent it out to a worker coop.
Your example is literally capitalism. You use your capital and extract surplus value from the worker coop in the form of “rent”.
Technically speaking, Marxist idea of communism is a system where everyone just agrees to get along and share. The goal of communism and anarchism is largely the same, the differences are in how to reach that goal. Anarchists believe class struggles can be solved without a state apparatus while communists believe state apparatus will wither away on its own once the class struggle has been solved. In both cases you end up in a classless and stateless system where people just get along.
I guess it depends on the definition of private property and communal ownership. For me private property is synonymous with private ownership, meaning someone, not everyone, owns the means of production. With communal ownership I don’t mean communal society, but rather ownership by a group. For example everyone within a company owning the means of production of said company would be communal ownership.
In that sense I disagree with coops not preventing individuals owning private property in the means of production, because that creates the same frictions that capitalism creates. If someone owns a part of the means of production that you need to create the product, then it creates a situation where they can use that ownership as leverage because without that part you cannot create the product. If their means of production are irreplaceable then they can demand more fruits of labor, because they own a key part of productions, which is essentially what capitalism is. If it’s communal ownership there’s no leverage because it’s for everyone to use and nobody can demand more simply because they own a key part of the production.
I think the algorithm is so distorted by right-wing engagement that it will end up recommend right-wing content, even if you actively try to avoid it. I watch youtube shorts and I always skip if it’s Shapiro, Peterson, Tate or Pierce Morgan. I also skip the moment I feel like the shorts might be right-wing. Scroll enough and eventually the algorithm will go “How about some Shapiro, Peterson, Tate or Morgan?” Give it enough time and it will always try to feed you right-wing content.
It is kinda cynical, but it’s also exactly what you’re seeing on Reddit. Some subs stopped protesting the moment Reddit said they will start removing moderators. Not because the sub wanted to stop protesting, but because the mods of that sub decided so. /r/pcgaming for instance is one of those subs. Another sub I frequently visited, /r/europe, pulled an entire charade of having users vote whether they want to protest or not, when protest won they asked for suggestions on how to protest, the top suggestion was moving the community which got no response from the mod team, instead they had another vote on whether to stop protesting or continue, and when continuing to protest won they gave some bullshit response and opened the sub. I never said moderators don’t care about their subs, I simply stated that some of them value their moderation of the sub above what the sub might want to do.
As for fracturing the community, I’d argue what Reddit did already fractured communities into people who want to protest and people who don’t. Fracturing was always going to happen, it’s only a matter of making it apparent or acting like it didn’t happen. Because of that you’re not going to move the entire community anyway. The community is fractured, some people just don’t want to move. From the mod perspective it should come down to understanding who are the people that actually make up the community you’re moderating and then doing what they want.
I don’t have an issue with mods who had the community vote and then opened the sub (or didn’t even participate in the protest in the place) if the community voted that way. I have an issue with the mods who effectively make those decisions themselves. If you’ve already decided to protest without discussing it with the community then IMO you can’t just decide to back out later, unless the community wants it. But that’s what some of the mods did. Decided to protest and then decided to stop. Then it is already in your self-interest because you’ve technically already abused your power to protest without communicating it with the community. If you then stop protesting you should also resign because it’s a breach of trust and someone who the community cannot trust shouldn’t stay as a mod. But the mods don’t do that because “who else is going to moderate?”, meaning they would much rather moderate a community that has no reason to trust them than have someone else moderate the community. How is that not putting their own interest of moderating over the interest of the community?
Mods have an attachment to their community, but most of them have a bigger attachment to mod power. Plenty of mods were willing to protest, until their mod position was threatened. It’s also why most mods won’t even consider resigning or moving their community to the elsewhere, because that puts their mod position at risk.
Having a significant impact was never on the table.
To make the ex metaphor. Talking shit about your ex is not productive but talking about what was wrong or didn’t work can be very insightful. Entirely blocking your ex out of your mind is a pretty easy way to make the same mistakes again.
I can see why people think it’s annoying but I think this is also a good thing. Talking about this helps people understand what they want to see in their communities or instances.
Same. I think I have roughly 2k hours over the years, but I’ve reduced my own playtime (and also the amount of money I give them, I don’t buy it unless it’s more than 50% off) over the years and ever since Forsaken I’ve had less and less reason to recommend it to anyone else. The big reason is pretty simple. Bungie just keep giving it less and less focus while monetizing the game as much as possible. Without writing an essay on everything wrong with Destiny I think the best summary is that the game has lost it’s vision and turned into a content treadmill. The themes of the original story have been largely thrown out the window. There’s no longer a clear artistic style of Destiny but rather whatever seems “fun”, like having 80s themed sci-fi setting with a “surfs up bro” type of character for an expansion. That expansion in the context of the wider story was supposed to be the dreadful defeat and uncertainty about the future, but we’ve thrown the story out anyway so who cares? Content is largely the same thing we’ve been doing since Forsaken with the biggest difference being the setting. All the while price of the game is increased and content gets spread out between expansions, seasons, dungeons and in game store, so that Bungie could get all the money they want.
And that’s just for the seasoned players. New players have it even worse. The new player experience is a lazily put together nonsensical mess. One of the worst I’ve seen. New players would have to put in a lot of effort to “get” Destiny and for that commitment they get “buy now” thrown in their face on every possible chance like some shitty F2P mobile game.
As someone who came from RIF I couldn’t stand Jerboa. It was just too unintuitive. I’m currently using Connect for Lemmy, but honestly I’m just waiting and hoping Sync for Lemmy is going to fill the void that RIF left. Sync for Reddit probably would’ve been my go to app if I hadn’t discovered RIF before.
WE’RE WATCHING YOU. SCUM.