discussions & discourse oughta function like software with transparent iteration. what if bluesky arguments worked like github?

yeahhhh… sometimes i can’t make friends with everyone 😢

but maybe it is impossible to get her to overcome cognitive dissonance unless the message comes from a different horse’s mouth.
but human minds are malleable, and anyone can be convinced of anything if you communicate correctly imo imo

if i could just sit this lady down with a dirty diet coke w/ lime and just chat about the necessity of people’s personal autonomy, i think we could get to a point where she’d be forced to humanize trans people

many people say that people are hard to change, and convincing the hand of evil to be less terrible is a waste of time.

why can’t i convince her? everyone is capable of change. i refuse to believe that every person doesn’t possess some unique targeted message that could convince them of anything

chill guy, looks like a mothfellow

imagine a platform where several news stories concerning the same event could be juxtaposed by each piece of information. imagine community commenting streamlined enough to properly engage in discourse and call out bias.

if i were to change Bluesky’s UX in its current form, i would make it less like twitter and more like reddit. i really like the karma system. being able to publically shame people for bad takes is decentralized moderation, and leads to less power sinks.

the reason why global communication leads to so much harm is because we haven’t designed it in a way to prevent miscommunication. community notes, public scrutiny, and transparent moderation is a path towards social media of the future

like, there’s a ton of risk in cultural appropriation and bad faith weaponization of holistic religious collectives, but if it were decentralized and created in a way where public scrutiny was transparent and easy to understand, it would overall benefit education globally

like, if there was a digital commons geared towards collecting and translating spiritual texts into content that is easily consumed, people could get to the messages that work for them quicker.

like, think about a meditation app. headspace, for example. it is basically a paid service for achieving a state of mindfulness and inner peace on the day to day. trouble is, headspace is just so bland and cookie cutter that, in trying to capture everyone, it captures no one.

i kinda want to create a critical metaphysics, or spirituality that doesn’t suck; essentially, propagandize profound nuggets of religions from around the world into a streamlined curriculum towards nirvana.

so what i’m wondering is, is trying to be popular internet automatically dooming me to another run around on samsara? or can i turn being hot and cool on the internet and that into a path towards collective enlightenment?

like, could you make capitalism without OTHERIZATION? like, i think exploitation relies on someone to marginalize. an in-group can only stratify its wealth when there’s an out-group to leech off of

does the Ctrl+Alt+Del guy own the comic Loss? maybe the original, but the concept that has turned into an english language Kanji? no chance. you can’t own a word. the coiner of a term just exists as a fun factiod about etymology. words belong to the commons. published art belongs to everyone.

the concept that someone can own an idea is silly, and YT copyright strikes and the advent of LLM AI proves that ideas exist in the ether, and they can only spread, never being able to be contained.

personally, when i make art, i hope that other people take it. i like having cred as much as the next gal, but ultimately, all art and all ideas are built upon all that came before it.

and now, we get big companies even further doubling down on how the little guy has no right to IP with AI. everyone’s ideas have now been stolen to feed an ever-growing beast, and trying to claim ownership over ideas is becoming near impossible