• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle








  • And what do you do after three years? Then the cash will be used up.

    Mozilla isn’t just developing the Firefox browser. Technology is inherently political - and educating people and influencing actors politically on the free and open web is very important. Firefox is much less likely to mis-align away from their browser users than chrome simply because they don’t have the misaligned incentives like the chrome Browser which is equally made by the largest internet advertising firm of the world.

    They even has created FirefoxOS for phone at some point in the past 10 years. But I don’t remember what happened with that.





  • I am exactly doubting your suggestion of tax paid donations. I don’t think this will happen, unless we actually come together and try to actually enforce this on the political level in various countries.

    After all, open source software is an essential and critical foundation since many decades - but I’m not sure, whether there is any government that has made a pledge to donate a certain amount of money per year into the development and funding of such general purpose software. (Maybe I’m wrong though.)

    Before the fediverse can get any public funding, we need to make some political efforts. the UN is the largest such institution - and it took all the fiasco with the 2 world war to get many countries pledge to donate to it every year…


  • A decentralised platform like the Fediverses won’t easily work with nation states and their taxes. Even with Wikipedia today, it’s not funded directly via any government - but rather by certain universities giving some money to it + all the private doners.

    And even if we get that working, power politics will mess this up like so often when things actually get troublesome.

    It might be interesting to explore cryptocurrencies as for donations here though. They do have international liquidity and they can’t be misused foe power politics.



  • Because the police also protects them. Any old fashion violent revolt will be not greeted by population (currently) and the police and government will prevent that with force. the funny thing is, that the police and co. consistently protect the interests of the rich more than the interests of the poor. you’ll barely get discriminated if you’re rich. and it happens often, that rich people in a city are known by the policemen and they know that they shouldn’t fine them - as otherwise they’re out of their job.

    Many people actually have forgotten, that unions were created because the workers were starting to kill owners of factories/companies due to the massive exploitation. Unions were only powerful, because the alternative - namely violentl death for the owners by being outnumbered - was actually dangerous and had teeth. but these days, unions have much less teeth - and when strikes don’t work, violence becomes necessary.


  • There are actually quite a few places where they buy bunkers - but with luxury and stuff. it’s also marketed as a way of safe spot to retreat when the surface goes bad.

    obviously, it’s rather a big ,“we found a way to make money out of rich peoples fears and doubts” rather than actual security measures. if things really go bad, how are they going to know, that their security guards aren’t going to ditch them? and if they isolate, then they cannot sustain their lifestyle in a bunker with bunker food.




  • Be a fossile fuel company and lobby the government: Police protects you despite all the climate genocide.

    Be a citizen paying taxes and protesting harmlessly to bring the government to action: “OMG U r dangerous! We need to protect the companies your fellow citizens from you!!11”

    And before someone says, that the protests are ineffective Check this out.

    https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666

    Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant