I’m speedrunning this shit.

Imagine enforcing shitty copyright laws on yourself like some code of honor. We developed the technology to make infinite copies of any media and then spend endless resources fighting it because it undermines our parasitic economic model.

Imagine for a moment that society embraced the full potential of digital technology. We could have a library of all human art and knowledge ever produced available for free, instantly, everywhere. If book libraries didn’t already exist and were proposed today the excuses for rejecting it would be the same. The answer is also the same, change our economic model to support people’s basic needs unconditionally and directly subsidize the production we need/want (like art).

Craigslist was always on the fringes, before Facebook marketplace came in there were a bunch of separate and disconnected online marketplaces. Facebook marketplace had the advantage of already having a massive user base (larger than any of the existing online marketplaces), causing it to become the largest one right out the gate, which then of course makes it the most attractive option for sellers since they will reach more people.

Luckily the writers were able to finish it the way they wanted with a second season, and it’s fantastic. AMC almost did axe it before the second season released but after it was already finished but fans were able to get them to release it.

If anyone’s interested in a hard sci-fi show about uploading consciousness they should watch the animated series Pantheon. Not only does the technology feel realistic, but the way it’s created and used by big tech companies is uncomfortably real.

The show got kinda screwed over on advertising and fell to obscurity because of streaming service fuck ups and region locking, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s at least partially because of its harsh criticisms of the tech industry.

The tv show Pantheon figures it will work, but it will be very disturbing.

Wikipedia - While the Wikimedia Foundation itself is hierarchical, it manages Wikipedia through a process of community-led governance. Every article is maintained by a community of volunteers who engage in open debate to decide on content moderation policies. Wikipedia remains one of the few popular websites to avoid the recent internet enshittification.

Food Not Bombs - An activist organization that serves free food. FNB has no central organizing body, instead operating as a loose-knit group of independent collectives who voluntarily cooperate and exchange information and resources with one another. One specific collective, “A Food Not Bombs Menu,” has taken to coordinating the global activities of FNB collectives and helping people start new ones, but has no power over any others.

IWW - The Industrial Workers of the World, while hierarchical, ensures a hierarchy that is accountable to its’ rank and file members by means of a robust democratic process, as well as the right of any member union or individual member to leave at anytime and go it alone.

There are many more, but it’s late and it took me a while to pick out what I think are good representative examples of different ways an organization can be run well.

They’re not dumpster fires because they’re run by humans, but because they’re run by unaccountable hierarchies. Humans are perfectly capable of running a sustainable and efficient operation if we only stopped to consider how better to make decisions collectively.

Don’t know and it doesn’t matter. The point is the kid, if informed properly and given the choice to go or not to go, is capable of making that choice.

You wouldn’t know what transexual means if you hadn’t been told or read or heard about it somewhere. That is as true of adults as it is of children. What you seem to be implying is that a child could not possibly understand the concept, and that is where we clearly disagree.

You don’t give children enough credit. Children are capable of understanding how they are different from others, even if they don’t have the words to describe it. They can understand that there are people with authority who make the rules, even if they don’t know the details. They are able to recognize when things are unfair and feel indignant about it, even if they’re unsure of why or how.

The mother can give her child the words to describe how they feel, the details of the world we live in, explain the whys and hows of it, and the child is capable of comparing that to what they know and thinking for themselves. Children are impressionable because of their lack of prior knowledge with which to make that comparison, but that does not mean they lack agency.

It is certainly possible that this mother manipulated her child, put words in her mouth, shielded her from information that could provide a basis for comparison, but that is an assumption for which you have no evidence except that you can’t imagine the alternative.

The alternative being that this mother raised her child lovingly, taught them all they could, trusted them with information from other sources, trusted them to make their own judgements with their guidance, and supported them when they came to their own conclusions.

That’s a lot of assumptions you’ve just made about this random mother and child you know nothing about.

They were there waiting to meet a Democratic supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, and did not seem to be seeking confrontation. Even the way the mother spoke to the Republican senator was about as non-confrontational as you could get, so I don’t see any evidence the mother is putting the kid in any situation she can’t handle. I’m sure the kid is glad to show up in support of her rights, and very much doubt she will regret doing so later.

Save your cynicism for when it’s appropriate.