smallpatatas

Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn't read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)

Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, "why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude" - which it sounds like we agree on!

How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?

Ok yeah that's super interesting, and maybe kinda sums up the whole thing: the devs make tech that reduces the opportunity for thought and engagement, and that frictionless experience results in worse outcomes for users, but better outcomes for profits.

And yet, paradoxically, there are probably plenty more folks like yourself that would prefer to use a different kind of app!

I mean, I was lucky to find a life-partner before dating apps were the default, so I'm going to be speaking a little out of turn here.

But I'd imagine that if those apps were a little more friction-y - like, if people weren't using an almost literally frictionless swipe left and right, but instead were encouraged by the interface to learn something about a person first, or, say, had to click reasons why they were swiping left or right - that it would be easier to make meaningful connections. You'd be designing in self-reflection and curiosity.

And sure, you might turn away some users by doing that - but what if that's actually a good thing?

I think there's a bit of irony in that the most 'frictionless' (and dehumanizing) way to interact on Lemmy might be to hit the downvote button. It's the thing that rewards the knee-jerk, un-considered reaction.

In a way, the downvote button is the thing that perfectly expresses the demand that one's experience confirm to pre-conceived notions of comfort - without having to face a response from the person being downvoted - and denies the downvoter the potential for growth.

I like this essay too :)

Lol, and just immediately downvoted. Lemmy needs that essay more than I thought! Too easy to be reactive without accountability on this platform, sadly

How is this not considered spam?

This is literally just an ad for a product. It even has the price in the title for crying out loud!

And to top it off, it's posted by an account that I'm pretty sure reported me for spam, because I posted a tech-philosophy essay where the site mentioned at the end that the essay was also published in a zine.

Well, thanks for not incorrectly calling the post spam and downvoting it at least lol

Huh? This is a link to an essay, unless I'm entirely missing something

Hey look, I wasn't the one that wrote this:

"E.g. for people in Turkey, it’s a lot more stable than their own currency. Same logic for probably dozens of other countries…"

Is the "dozens of other countries" statement something you no longer stand behind, or are you done being rude?

So the argument is no longer "Bitcoin provides stability" or whatever, but instead is, "it's no more unstable than the world's most unstable national currency"?