I should edit my comment and add “post rage bait”.

You’re absolutely right. I’d describe myself similarly to you. I even created a local community here for my city. But it feels like I’m speaking quietly on top of a mountain while the nearest person is a time zone away. Perhaps a handful of people would stop by and subscribe to the content but this isn’t about subscribing - it’s about engaging. Communities are about exchanging ideas. Posting something that compels people to engage is one way to increase activity. As more people notice the community, they’ll be more likely to engage when there’s enough noise around that doesn’t single them out too much.

The major social platforms know this. This is why they promote trash over quality information. This is why I get frustrated on Instagram because it continues to show me posts from two or three days ago notifying me that I missed an exciting event.

You can post all the great informative content you want on your little corner of the fediverse but without engagement, is it really there?

By permitting advertising.

“Normies” are not “microbloggers”. Most people just want to follow what their friends and family and news organizations and “influencers” are posting.

My biggest gripe with the fediverse (indirectly) is that all the information I would get on Twitter about my city is not available to me - concert announcements, restaurant specials, road closures, major news, hobby meetups, etc. They’re posting on Facebook and Instagram (which is IMO the worst of all social platforms) and slowly adopting Threads. My issue with these platforms is mostly regarding the algorithm deciding what it thinks you want. This is driven by advertising.

Twitter didn’t really pick up steam until celebrities and news outlets were posting and engaging on the platform. Then they pushed hard for ads to increase revenue and expand features and stability (for better or worse). Then they just got greedy. Then they were sold for the dumbest amount of money in the history of sales.

Getting normies here means getting influencers here. Influencers want to make money for being assholes. If you don’t want influencers and ads here, don’t ask for the normies to come. Accept the beauty of this micro micro blogging platform. If you want to share outside the open fediverse, embrace cross posting to the closed platforms. That’s kind of the whole point of it. You can post in your tiny little corner while still engaging with the more popular platforms.

TL;DR: be careful what you wish for.

That’s a good one. The photomarket on reddit was the main reason I was hesitant to shut down my account. And eBay is way too expensive and unfair for sellers.

Twitter.

I know this is the “wrong answer” but I had always used Twitter to keep tabs on local government agencies, newspapers, reporters, restaurants, bars, events, concerts, sports teams, etc. Not to mention all the accounts that pertain to my hobby’s and interests.

I’ve used bird.makeup but it’s not reliable if it works at all. Some agencies, like our transit system and streets department, will post on one thing on their website and something else on instagram or twitter (many have stopped using twitter after the api change). RSS is fine for some things but not everything. I haven’t been using instagram for years because of advertising and the algorithmic timeline. I at least need lists.

Really, the right answer here for my needs is that all these groups need to join the fediverse. I just don’t see that happening.

Or maybe I should say I wish the “existing platform” of my city government would start their own instance.

Sounds like you’re comparing a small town to a major city. We do have places in this country that meet your demands. And then there are smaller communities that don’t. And because lots of people prefer suburban sprawl over the convenience of living in a city, they may need to commute to where big business is.

If your small town is near an interstate or train track, and has open land, you may be lucky enough to have a decent size business break ground. Now more people can live closer to work. And now more people move to that town. And more small businesses open to support the growing community. And not far down the highway a mega strip mall opens. And within a few miles you have more homes and schools going up and now that train track has a train station. Congratulations, you now live in a small city. You got any sidewalks? Did they save any of that open land for parks? How’s the infrastructure holding up? How’s traffic?

That’s exactly what happening in the town I grew up in. I hated it and moved to an actual city. Life is relaxing and convenient and full of life. I have no car and use a bike public transportation. I more often walk to the stores and restaurants (those that haven’t closed yet). I engage with people (minimally) and find little joys in my daily life.

Now, imagine all of this if everyone just worked from home. There would be no need for a large corporate building or more homes or stores or schools. You’d have to drive further to the places where people live more densely for your everyday items. Or just rely on the miracle of the internet for someone to drop it at your door. Because as much as lots of people like suburban sprawl, they love not having to interact with anyone IRL.

Outside of Philadelphia is a region called The Mainline. It gets its name from the regional rail system that connects affluent suburbs with the city. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken with who complain about living in the suburbs and having to drive one of the worst highways in the country for their morning commute. When I ask why they simply don’t drive a few minutes to the station and take a train in to their place of work, they look at me as if I had two heads. Because people don’t want to interact with anyone IRL. They rather waste hours a day in the confines of their own vehicle and scream so no one can hear them.

It’s not the cities that need to be fixed. It’s the American mentality of individualism and false security in isolation. This needs to change and then the cities will naturally follow in revival.

So, while I greatly appreciate the work from home perspective, there’s more to the story than real estate losing value.

grand plazas, city centers, districts to walk/shop/eat/live life

Yes. That’s called a city. I don’t know what cities you have in mind but this is how I would describe my city of Philadelphia.

How come no one wants to talk about all the small business closing and people losing their jobs. This is a real tangible impact that shouldn’t be dismissed. I live in a big city and we’re all feeling the impact of people not returning to office work. Lack of revenue (small business, real estate, retail) is going to play a huge role in city budgets in the coming years. I work from home so I understand the appeal. Still, I don’t know how we, the city, come out of this.

Thankfully, this part of the Fediverse is working…

I’m not getting into how long a copyright should last. I don’t have a meaningful opinion on it.

What it seems people are overlooking (or forgiving?) is that the guy published a book about characters (IP) he doesn’t own. Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is theft.

Whether or not Amazon should option his material is irrelevant if he didn’t get permission to use it in the first place. I mean, fan fiction is one thing. Creative license and educational purposes could be argued. But he published a freaking book!

Do you think Zack Snyder should get to put out a Rebel Moon and call it “Rebel Moon: A Star Wars Story” without getting permission or paying for licensing? Is this the reality this sub believes we live in? If you write a novel and I read it and soon start writing better more successful stories based explicitly on your characters without crediting you or sharing in my profit, how would you feel? Should your work be public domain? Is that what you (collective) feel is best for “the public”?

I don’t really have an opinion on what should happen with the work either. I could see some cases where it would be a major loss for the public to have the work erased. This could be catastrophic for classic literature. For something so new and not having any established cultural significance (as much as you wish it did), I’d go with whatever a judge believes is best under the law. You’re welcome to argue the validity of the law, and I may agree with you, but that’s a different conversation.

Are you all children in here? Did you have nap time and your sippy today?

Everything you just said is the opposite of reality and facts. What’s going on in this sub?

There is a new work by an author using someone else’s intellectual property. That’s what’s this is about. That’s how they were sued.

Copyright laws specifically promote new ideas by punishing those who re-use existing ideas.

You can profit from others’ ideas by asking permission and paying a licensing fee. This happens all the time. It’s how business is done every day.

This entire sub is delusional. You believe in things which are untrue. You make things up to justify theft. It’s funny and it’s sad. I really don’t know where you get these irrational theories or how you’d ever justify them in a court.

If you want to live in literal communism, sure, you can establish that any idea anyone expresses belongs to the world. In the world we actually live in, we have laws protecting people’s intellectual property in order for them to generate content and profit from those original ideas. Otherwise, what’s the point of having an idea at all if anyone can make money from it. This further promotes new original ideas that aren’t derivative of existing ones. This is exactly what the OP stated and I agreed with.

K. Evidently reading the room is more important than reading the article.

I’m not defending anyone. I’m explaining the contradiction in the previous statement.

It’s mind boggling how anyone could possibly consider otherwise. Aside from your own life, there’s nothing more belonging to oneself than their thoughts.

Yes, copyright exists to encourage new works - which the author ignored by creating content violating copyright law. Never mind the public, this dude stole from the copyright holders. He’s a pirate and he got caught.

I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.

Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?

Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.

Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?

So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?

I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.

That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.

It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.

Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?

I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.