“Yeah, they’re gone”: Musk confirms cuts to X’s election integrity team — “‘Election Integrity’ Team… was undermining election integrity,” Musk writes::“‘Election Integrity’ Team… was undermining election integrity,” Musk writes.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have a hunch that in the terrifyingly near future, we’re going to see the internet absolutely dominated by enshitification.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s bad now …because like the frogs in hot water, we collectively just tolerate changes for the worse. But it used to be small incremental changes over a long period.

    Then this Musk asshole comes along, looks at the frogs ever so slowly cooking… and cranks the stove to max, pisses in the frog-pot, supplements the heating element with a welding torch, and flips the frogs off as he pours gasoline all over the kitchen.

    And the frogs JUST FUCKING TAKE IT.

    What message does that send to the rest of the internet?

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      117
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s a bit of good news. The idea that frogs just wait to get boiled is proven false. Every animal has a limit to what they will tolerate due to self preservation. The from will jump out when it gets too hot.

      That being said, I just recently watched Idiocracy… I’m a bit worried.

      • triclops6@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should be worried, in the movie they recognized their stupidity and made way for the smarter character to lead.

        our timeline is worse than idiocracy

      • Hyggyldy@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just remember that, regardless of the creators’ intents, Idiocracy is essentially pro-eugenics.

        • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not true at all, genetics only play a part in the mental development of a person, much of it is instead related to the environment where a person has been growing.

          It is as with talent, some people are better than other at certain activities but even the most gifted person cannot compete with a professional who has spent his life training and studying his craft.

          The same can be said for “intelligence”: if you are never taught to think you’ll never think once in your lifetime, even if you are the exact copy of Leonardo da Vinci; on the other hand, even if you are thick as a rock but you’ve been growing in a society focused on your development you’ll be able to become a normal person.

          Eugenetic politics do nothing for humanity betterment, social structure is much more important IMHO

          • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eugenics IMO is just another way to blame poor people for the bad luck of their birth. If we truly wanted to “perfect humanity” there are a million better ways, like free education.

            Just piggy backing off of what you’re saying

            • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Absolutely. Poverty comes never alone, it usually brings other friends to the party. Like poor education, lack of security, stress, poor nurishment and poor social environment. All this together can easily bring out the worst of people, while the contrary can improve their conditions.

              If you are focused on surviving you’ll never be able to grow as we are all supposed to

              • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Poverty comes never alone, it usually brings other friends to the party. Like poor education, lack of security, stress, poor nourishment and poor social environment.

                This is so true. Even “breaking out of” poverty is hard, if you’re lucky enough to have managed it, because you can’t ever change where you’ve come from. Just anecdotally, my siblings and I have done very well for ourselves financially, but we’ve had to take on a lot of other family members’ debt just to keep them from going under.

                So not only do poor people lack the safety net of family wealth, but they experience a kind of opposite effect if they even do manage to “make it.”

          • Hyggyldy@sffa.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, I agree with you and I’m not sure why you’re saying I’m wrong. That movie definitely has a eugenics bent and that’s why I’m saying people shouldn’t put too much stock in it.

            • FabioTheNewOrder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because the movie does not hint at eugenetics as solution to the crisis, it’s a hymn against stupidity and a cry to better educate the masses. First of all about sexual education and the danger of unprotected sex and secondly about politics and civic duties. I mean, I really don’t see how one could interpret the message of the movie as “do eugenetics”, that’s all.

              • Karfkengrumble@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think the people seeing it as pro-eugenics are latching onto the “stupid person makes stupid babies” part as being the reason for the Idiocracy. Basically they think the movie is arguing “IQ is 100% nature and 0% nurture”

                But IMO the intro pretty clearly showed that the main factor in the degradation of society is that the low IQ family were raising too many kids in a chaotic environment with no actual parenting.

            • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah it’s in the opening thesis of the movie:

              uneducated people kept having more kids and learned people kept putting it off

              Not saying I agree with the premise at all, and I’m putting it much more lightly than the movie does.

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

            It certainly was intended to be satire. Seems that they kind of failed at that over time. We need a new word for when someone makes super cool and blow cereal.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that’s the outcome of abstaining from eugenics, I’m willing to give it another shot.

    • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Most everyone I know doesn’t have a Twitter or Instagram. Obv I deleted my reddit. What are people supposed to do except just not use the platform? Most authors I want to follow are on substack or mastodon.

      I think that as the platforms further enshittify, people will realize there are no intelligent conversations happening on platforms like X, Instagram, Facebook, etc. Ragebait content can only captivate audiences for so long before they either abandon it or are brainwashed by it. If everyone on X is a musk dickrider right wing lunatic then it makes it easier for sane people to stay off of it. Honestly it might be better to give them their safespace echo chamber as long as Democrats, liberals and libertarians mobilize and make their arguments where it matters.

      • HRDS_654@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There never was intelligent conversation. People mostly used Twitter to talk about the news. Twitter has gotten worse, but it’s always been full of L takes.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s like Trump running for president because Obama and Seth Meyers roasted him in front of the world… So much awful shit in our world is a direct result of rich, whiney narcissists making things worse for everyone as collateral damage in whatever petty feud they’ve mostly invented in their heads.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But for real, I am actually fully convinced that that was the inception point in Trump’s head for the idea of going for the presidency.

    • mibo80@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s hope the FCC and whatever other agencies applicable, get teeth and clamp down hard on how these social media giants. the way they operate its damn near treasonous at this point how open they are with allowing other governments to influence their policies. Especially with advertising and to children.

      • Willy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s an interesting take. I’m kind of curious what you mean by the split. It seems like it’s already split a few times, and I sort of see Lemmy as another split. I think the biggest craziness that will get thrown into the mix is serious amounts of AI content, which I know people are tired of hearing about now, but it’s a huge deal. I think people are underestimating its power.

    • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your point still stands, but as far as I can tell in my city, no one really cared about or used Twitter. Even more so after Elongated Muskrat took over. Twitter was always an echo chamber for the most part when it came to mainstream stuff. Sure, there are a few niche cases, but with those cases there was usually already an alternative. Twitter was never as popular to normal people as it is to influencers, celebs, and for some weird reason government personnel or groups. That’s just my experience with the platform at least. I do not know a single person who even used Twitter once in my entire life.