• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s on me, I’m also having an extremely similar conversation with someone else specifically about that

    What you did say was:

    I’m not saying there should be no internet. I am only saying maybe some restraint would be advantageous for everyone.

    So what I meant to say In my last comment was:

    What does any of that have to do with the restraint with regards to the Internet?

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      To spell it out again, not everything has to be done on the internet. Many people go on thinking ‘out with the old in with the new’ without ever considering scope and practicality. If you suddenly became manager of an office building with a complete pneumatic tube system your first instinct might be to gut the pneumatic tubes and do everything over email. That’s an OK thought but should that really be your first instinct? Most people wouldn’t even understand how pneumatic tubes work in the first place. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to to understand what the tubes are there for. Why they’ve lasted 60+ years. If the building is already wired with ethernet and has internet connection what should it matter if you use both keeping the tubes in place to continue their purpose?

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Okay, sure? That was always allowed. Again, “People should behave differently than they do” without any proposed method of bringing about whatever “differently” is, is just impotent platitude. That’s why I keep reiterating “incentivize or force”. Without one of those two pressures, people will continue to make individual decisions about their behavior, including which things they choose to do on the Internet, like they have been doing the whole time. Some will choose to do things on the Internet which can be done sufficiently other ways, others will choose to use simpler technologies.

        When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

          I would challenge that. Say tomorrow I invented the eat-o-matic 5000 a top of the line eating utensil. Built in wifi, self cleaning, tracks how much food your eat, easy to manufacture, biodegradable, comes with a native streaming service that allows you to stream your eating experience to friends and family, affordable, etc.

          Do you think in everyone would throw away their forks and knifes immediately and start using the eat-o-matic 5000? How about in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

          Maybe the eat-o-matic is that good. I tend to believe forks and knives wouldn’t go anywhere, though. I also know forks and knives are already not the only technology that exists and the fact that one utensil isn’t ubiquitous proves that incentives and force are not the only factors at play.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I feel like a broken record:

            Yes, obviously, people are allowed to make their own choices. Not using the flashiest new toys and services is allowed. Acknowledging that fact is not useful. You telling people what they should and shouldn’t do is not going to have a societal effect.

            If you would like to propose some regulatory or incentive policy to nudge people toward simpler technologies, then that is a useful conversation. But just stating your opinion? Old man yells at cloud.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m not saying that your opinion shouldn’t exist, but some restraint would be advantageous.

                Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

                Some opinions provide valuable hypotheses which can promote thoughtful discussion regardless of their validity, like “A value-added tax would benefit the working class”. Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious, like “Israelis and Palestinians should just get along”.

                Endless promotion of the latter is probably one of the most unnecessary uses of the Internet, muttering to oneself alone at home is a sufficient technology for that purpose.

                • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Sounds like an opinion to me. Of course your opinion is more valid because you said it. Since you would never be a hypocrit incapable of self reflection. Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

                  Let me know if you need me to explain it because I know how hard it is for you to comprehend simple ideas.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

                    The irony.

                    Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking