Actual workers. If we made a society where people are taken care of, we’d find most folks would be enthusiastic about their work. Saying “people don’t want to work” is often taken at face value when the reality is that most people do want to work, because it helps them feel a sense of purpose. They don’t, however, want to be exploited/work under capitalism because that is soul crushing.

Obviously they meant the former since that’s what we’re literally doing here. But even the latter would do a better job managing Twitter/Reddit than what they have now.

What are you doing trolling on this site then?

deleted by creator

the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly”

Sure, but the reason why they want to keep the site “child friendly” is because content for children is incredibly profitable and because advertisers don’t want their ads getting related to “controversial” content.

Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.

This is the reason why I don’t like equating socialism with “workers owning the means of production”. Worker-cooperatives can exist in a capitalist economy, which means they have to follow capitalist rules (including the drive to generate profits).

When leftists say “workers”, they generally mean “the 99%” or “the working class”, not individual workers. When leftists say “the means of production”, they mean the economy/industry overall, not individual companies.

If youtube was owned and operated in common, it would not be bound to profitability, but to use.

We can also look at something like peertube, which is essentially a commonly owned version of youtube. Instead of being guided by profitability, it is used based on many different use-cases. There can be peertube instances that are completely private, there can be peertube instances that are used for a specific topic or community (for example kids) and there can be peertube instances which are not for children at all.

Enshittification of those services is a direct symptom of capitalism.

No one is arguing that the fediverse exists because of workers owning the means of production.

You should really look into what “enshittification” means and how it’s a direct result of capitalism.

Monetisation rules are a direct result of capitalism. Profits are what motivates the decision making. In a post-capitalism economy it would be the needs and wants that motivates the decision making. One of the failures of capitalism is that we assume wants/needs has a correlation with profits, when clearly the enshitification demonstrates otherwise.

What’s your definition of socialiam

Thank you for providing a great example of being confidently incorrect.

Using socialism as a boogeyman by definition, is a poor argument. There are merits to many different economic systems, many of which have pros and cons, capitalism and socialism included.

The laugh, and “listen” while providing absolutely no reasoning demonstrates a certain level of arrogance, while at the same time demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the subject

Is there a communism society that has succeeded? Lol

American here and fuck capitalism.

Why complain when capitalism ruins something that it created? Isn’t that how it works? Something else will come along and don’t better or differently and people will flock to it until it sucks too.

Hey now, that’s unfair!

As à Canadian, I can attest that we also blindly defend capitalism.

Depends on what you mean by socialism. All systems have upsides and downsides. Late stage capitalism in the US has a lot of downsides, but workers taking over the means of production does not have a good track record.

Finnish person here to say fuck socialism.

Man socialism keeps sounding better and better they will even take those pesky wife and kids off my hands/s.

But in serious most Americans don’t know shit about socialism our capitalism they live under. Dumb fucks look at you with surprise when you mention our highway system would be considered socialist program.

If I don’t swallow the propaganda, I don’t swallow anything. We’re hungry, man.

I like capitalism. It is cool sometimes.

(Comment gets downvoted to oblivion)

Communism does not have a good track record in places like Poland. After the absolute shithole that the PRL was, I dont kniw how you except people to defend communism.

We are poor and our freedoms are exploited, but at least we’re free!

KRUSTY KRAB IS UNFAIR!

MR. KRABS IS IN THERE!

STANDING AT THE CONCESSION!

PLOTTING HIS OPPRESSION!

I took a look at history and see nothing but downside of capitalism: environmental crisis, homelessness, wealth inequality

Shitty people always ended up in charge and found a way to enrich themselves. Maybe in the far future once we have a true artificial intelligence, communism can truly work after they elect some unbiased AI (no skynet please) to be their leader.

Which turns the users into the workers in this equation since those services need to be maintained and contributed to.

Allowing capitalist relations to persist, even if basic goods like food and homes were nationalized, enables a society in which capitalist profiteers continue to operate. History shows pretty explicitly that Capital will use the levers of power that exist, like The State, to eat away at or overturn any socialistic advances. E.g., suddenly the luxury capitalist corporation that sells idk, pearls, is lobbying (bribing) their way into privatizing beaches from which they operate. Slowly but surely the socioeconomic relations produced under capitalism foment and claw their way back to their former position. This requires a constant, indefinitely revolutionary society to keep capitalist relations at bay; that sort of momentum is not possible to sustain, certainly at the current moment.

It’s necessary to abolish capitalists as a class because leaving capitalist systems of relations alone enables them to continue to re-produce themselves.

That doesn’t preclude this sort of dual-economic setup from being a good thing, just insufficient.

I mean, we first need to define what a luxury and what a necessity is. For some things like food, shelter, water, healthcare it’s pretty straightforward. But for resources like energy or communications it’s less obvious.

I’d argue that the internet is now a necessity rather than a luxury, but many people to this day still don’t have or choose not to have internet access (due to geography or religion). Energy is the same way, if we take an obviously bad example, but say you’re socializing electricity for everyone, what’s to stop someone from mining cryptocurrency on everyone else’s dime ? That person would be profiting off of the social net. Where do we put the cursor between “luxurious” energy use and “necessary” energy use ? It’s a tough thing to figure out.

Furthermore, for most people you need an incentive to work, right now it’s survival, which is not great, but if all of your needs basic, and more are taken care of by the state, you only work for the luxuries, which would greatly reduce the available workforce. It’s again a tough balance to find.