The pirates are back - Anew study from the European Union’s Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) suggest that online piracy has increased for the first time in years. In fact, piracy rates have bee…::We analyze a new study where the EUIPO suggests online piracy is on the increase within the European Union.

  • poopkins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whether or not the insights are deep or shallow, Lemmy would be an inclusive place where discourse is welcomed and civil interactions are commonplace.

    Instead, any comment that invites conversation to go more in depth is downvoted with ad hominem attacks, further adding toxicity to the cesspool that is the comment section behind effectively any post on this community.

    • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      downvotes is just a way to show that you disagree with something. It is not there to punish you. People choose some topics to engage actively by participating in the comments while in some other topics they prefer to express their opinion just by agree/disagree (upvote/downvote). Now you call a whole community toxic just because not everyone agrees with you…

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This really gets to the heart of the issue: downvoting a comment that one doesn’t agree with is precisely what creates a toxic community. Having opposing opinions is indeed exactly what makes conversation insightful. Imagine listening to a debate where one side has their microphone muted; that would be very dull and quite literally an echo chamber.

        I personally welcome opposing views and often find myself upvoting entire threads full of constructive conversation, regardless of which side I lean to, because the discourse invites the conversation. Having this additional dimension behind a submitted post is what I came to Lemmy for. Unfortunately, the sentiment on the platform further and further shifts towards a mentality that a comment that doesn’t immediately reinforce a comment I agree with must be downvoted.

        • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          you’re overthinking it. There is not even a “global” karma like reddit. Your up/down-votes are not counting towards your “internet points”. They are in a per-comment basis and they’re a quick way to interact with opinions. Would you prefer everyone commenting “agree”/“disagree” ?

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure how some measure of internet karma weighs into the point I’m trying to make. The point rating of a comment determines its positioning in a thread, sometimes even altogether hiding it in some Lemmy clients when it falls below some threshold.

            By this measure, the visibility of comments is determined by their individual score, and to reuse my analogy from before, effectively determines the volume at which voices are heard. What I often see here on Lemmy, is that like-minded and reinforcing comments are amplified, drowning out insightful ones.

            No, I don’t think people should make comments like you’ve suggested, much in the same way that votes shouldn’t be used to achieve the same. Should I be downvoting your comment because I disagree with it? Or upvoting it because this is an interesting point of debate? I choose for the latter.

            • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I get your point. For me (and I suppose for some other people) works a bit different. When I’m not actively participating in a conversation, up/down vote is a quick way to show agreement/disagreement. I cannot upvote something that I complete disagree. However, in cases that I’m actively engaging, I don’t use it as a punishment tool so I just abstain. Like here, I weren’t downvoting you because it was an active ongoing conversation and I expressed myself by comments. You were actively engaging in good faith (I suppose) so it was fine. But at the same time I could not upvote either the comments in which I was finding myself disagreeing (I think I upvoted 1-2 at the end). However people are “passing-by” and up/downvote to show their view. Don’t take it as your punishment. But also you cannot “demand” that since you wrote something that you believe contributes to a discussion everyone should also believe that your points were so well made that should be upvoted even though they disagree. By this logic we should upvote everything that is longer that 5 words.

              • poopkins@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Certainly, generally I completely agree. Honestly I think it takes a solid dose of critical thinking to cultivate an environment where dissenting opinions are valued to encourage healthy discourse. I personally don’t care at all about the score of comments; what irks me is that communities here trend toward bubbling up poor quality interactions.

                Somewhat tangential, I find it strange that there would be anything in my specific comments here that can be disagreed with; I think it’s a very nuanced stance to suggest that price changes aren’t solely driven by corporate greed, but to some (at least small) degree, also affected by other factors.

                Perhaps Lemmy just isn’t the right platform for me, but it pains me because honestly I believe there’s an opportunity for it to be something better: a place where readers can learn more behind an article. I know that’s what I often seek in the comments.

                • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think it’s a very nuanced stance to suggest that price changes aren’t solely driven by corporate greed

                  do you seriously believe that the CEO of netflix was struggling to survive, was living on a month-by-month paycheck, and was having any cut in their “wage” ?

                  Some people tend to forget that behind a corporation that presents numbers that are falling behind, there are humans who make profits regardless.

                  • poopkins@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, I don’t believe that, what would lead you to think that’s my position? In fact, I appreciate that there is market conformity in compensation, and lowering wages of everybody from chair people down to entry level engineers is not so simple. It is exceedingly difficult to on one hand try to reduce expenses through wage reduction, while on the other continue to develop a competitive platform with industry experts.

                    I’m not saying there’s no middle ground, because there certainly is. Indeed tech companies have been slashing jobs and perks to reduce costs. A recent example of that is with Disney, which included layoffs in Disney+. I’m not quite sure who in particular you’re referring to in your last statement and surely I’ve misinterpreted what you mean with it, but to be clear, I personally don’t think it would be fair towards employees to slash their income and expect them to work without making ends meet so that the rest of us to enjoy a recreational service.

                    That being said, I’m certainly not one to defend executive compensation. At the same time, we should appreciate that this is only a part of a much more complex issue than share price, dividends or executive pay. After all, even if the CEO received no compensation at all, it would make a negligible difference to the balance sheet and, by extension, our monthly service fee.

                    I want to reiterate that I don’t disagree with you: corporate profits are certainly part of the problem. I just want to clarify that there are many more compounding external factors.