81
.io considered harmful
(www.beep.blog)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
81 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
37742 readers
722 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Anyone who is buying vanity domains, nevermind tech companies, is giving the British government far more money every year through taxes, even in the US. And divestment from the .io TLD is not, as far as I can see anywhere in the advocacy links they provided, cited as part of their activism, so doing it doesn't send a message to anyone.
If the Chagos people are not making the argument for divestment, why is the author?
In another blog post the same author equates Apple taking out ads on Twitter, to Apple doing anti-LGBT+ advocacy, and I think there's an important parallel to this post:
It's one thing to hold views like
But taking those viewpoints, which are very much NOT the common view by most people, and then using them to accuse said people of being pro-settler-colonial or anti-LGBT+, is not a workable or even helpful position.
If all the tech companies divest of their .io domain names right now, what will that gain the Chagos people? If we're being honest, absolutely nothing. Hell, if the companies don't all issue press releases as they do it, I doubt even the Chagos refugees themselves would think it had anything to do with them.
Maybe I'm just getting tired of activism that seems content to revel in its own... mindfulness, we'll call it- without actually trying to change anything, but it feels like the author would have been hard-pressed to choose a position to advocate that has LESS chance of helping the Chagos people without just being totally unrelated.
The Chagos Refugees are seeking repatriation of the .io domain name and fees. They likely don't want people to stop using that domain unless they lose that case.
So in other words, tech companies divesting of it would potentially HURT the Chagos people, since they will receive that money if they gain control of the TLD. Amazing.
The UN can’t even get them back their land, what makes you think international law is going to go out of the way to give them money for a domain?
Wouldn't that need to be done if they're given the islands back, though?
Completely agreed. If anything this kind of accusation pushes people to the right as they got defensive.
Every significant organisation, government, big company probably had done something terrible at some point. The world is not black and white. Internet activism is "not helpful".
If people want to help the refugees, donate to organisations helping them. Or even better, volunteer to help them. Stop doing "purity tests" in the online world.
The only thing I want to push back on is that internet activism isn't helpful. It's incredibly important for education, because most people don't see or hear anything but CNN or Fox in their daily lives, so Facebook and Twitter have become an excellent opportunity and tool to get important causes in from of peoples' eyes who would otherwise never encounter them.
In the context of the blog post, I found the background information about the Chagos refugees incredibly educational, it was just a terrible call-to-action. Like you said, the CTA should have been to donate or to volunteer, or to spread the blog post in order to educate others. It became counterproductive when it became about a highly-specific, questionably-impactful action that no one reading the article can likely affect.
CNN/Fox are biased, for sure - but that's nothing compared to straight up lies pushed by large sections of the internet. And those lies tend to perform better than facts on algorithmic timelines that optimise for engagement. For example articles showing "proof" that covid-19 killed various celebrities who are, in fact, very much alive and healthy, with the clear intent to create fear among large sections of society. A tactic that seems to be far too effective.
I think the world needs to go back to human moderation. Like we have on (well run) fediverse communities.
I never said Facebook and Twitter are good, I said they're an important tool for getting non-mainstream/neoliberal viewpoints in front of people. They exist whether we like it or not.
Do the algorithms favor conservative viewpoints? Yep. But that's no reason to just wholesale cede those platforms to the Right.
Yup, which is why it's basically impossible to be an ethical consumer these days. "The Good Place" did a really entertaining exploration of this idea.
If anything tbf .io puts the Indian Ocean Territory on the map.
If I had a dollar for the amount of shit opinions from shit blog sites on these technology forums, I would be a rich man.