I’m sure this was very funny in a lonely misogynist sort of way.

Wasn’t rage bait tbh, serious disgust I have for men like this and also you.

Why men* don’t like me.

Wow, that’s so funny how that guy made the joke about raping those dead sex workers’ bodies. What a mad lad and one of the boys.

This is why people don’t like men.

More liberal doomerism, nice.

OK lib.

If had a nickel for every time I had a person with a passing interest in Marxism mansplain the world to me. This is a starting point, materialism is not exclusively how socialists and anarchists criticize or understand capitalism.

You seem to think this is contradictory, which should spur you to question something more fundamental instead of assuming others are just dumber than you. “Coordination” would require a conspiratorial level of organizing between groups that, while maintaining common interests, distorts the reality of this system to the point of incomprehensibility. If your way of thinking finds it impossible to analyze the interaction between people – individual actors – and the system they are positioned in – as in their class interests – then you will find this system incomprehensible. This is so because, guess what, there are individual actors who are not powerlessly making decisions in accordance with their positionality.

In order to do that, you must start understanding these things as relational. There are class interests motivating these policies, those class interests are not the sole mover of these actions. To suggest as much would do what you are trying to do right now, which is universalise human action. I wonder if you’ve thought about power dynamics in indigenous nations under settler-colonialism, and what it would mean to only interpret their navigation of this system with the frameworks that originate from Europe with the goal of understanding European ways of organizing. How do you understand conflicting interests within shared classes even under the same material conditions?

Getting fuckin tired of people on here presuming they’re all-knowing; many of these interactions happen to occur in discussions on Europe, go figure. Won’t be responding to anything else from you unless it is actually serious.

Strange, I didn’t realize there was any non-liberal, anti-capitalist states within the EU.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point, what I’m saying is that these sorts of policies are an inevitable consequence of liberalism because it requires an oppressive level of population control to function. The internet is a threat to that control, and therefore liberal states have responded predictably and consistently by moving to create as many vectors of restriction and punishment as they can. The UK is not part of the EU, Canada (which has been pushing for this for half a decade now) isn’t, Australia isn’t, but they are all capitalist and imperialist liberal states.

I don’t know how contrived the mechanisms have to be before people just accept that these ideological forces do not need specific mechanisms to exist. Tech firms did not produce liberalism and capitalism, as they did not exist when these ways of organizing emerged. Everything you described here are consequences of this system and the means by which it reproduces itself, they are not the system itself. Yeah, they organize, they do so because they have a common interest which is capital, and the imperatives of profit and infinite growth historically manifest consistently in formal and informal mechanisms of control like this.

Class warfare doesn’t apply here any better than it does to the informal consequences of neoliberal individualism which is both intentionally reinforced in media and culturally through its subscription by middle-class property owners. It may look coordinated, but that term distorts how these systems of power function and reproduce by creating the narrative that there is a select group of people responsible for this outcome, even while individual actions are taken to realise it.

It’s not “coordinated” any more than every action in service of capital is. These policies and values coincide because all of these liberal states share common imperatives. The internet is a problem for liberals; it is impossible to fully control without diminishing its use for industry, anti-capitalism has flourished online even with the overwhelming corporate promotion of fascism and liberalism, and the international nature of the medium has made imperialism more visible to the metropole than ever.

They correctly identify that the internet is a threat to their security, and they are moving to secure it and punish as many people as they can to discourage its use for disruptive purposes.

Liberals. It’s systemic like it has always been. As cathartic as it is to remember the French Revolution, it’s not like it worked and ended stratification and imperialism. Liberalism will always seek as much control as possible, and the internet has proven to be a huge fucking problem exactly because it is so impossible to control.

Oh, how noble of you. Eat shit, fascist.

I think you’re underestimating how much of a problem liberal states are in their use of soft power. I don’t doubt that most Linux users and devs would resist, I’m saying that it would definitely be a threat for liberal states to dedicate resources to influencing norms and access. They don’t need to “win” as in complete and utter domination of every aspect of development for Linux to have a massive and negative effect. Think about how much more labour the US state has at is disposal than the entirety of the Linux community; how much more resources it has that could be dedicated to the privileging of projects that do comply.

Yes, how to resist is certainly important to consider, but there’s no way to design that resistance if you ignore the tools at their disposal. Look at how big Zorin got from just a timely marketing campaign or the fact that corporate- and enterprise-oriented revenue models are already deeply influential on the landscape even without state promotion.

A nice side of racism with your Euro smugness.

Oh, no it wouldnt be like “we’re mandating this through legislation,” because that is typically really hard to defend. They’re more likely to simply provide subsidies or some sort of financial benefit to larger, more compliant entities.

This is a very importrant thing to keep in mind. Liberalism is exceptional at appropriation and assimilation, and there is already a tremendous amount of corporate influence on the trajectory of Linux development. Since the open source nature of Linux is fairly robust, this would mean that control would look a lot like accessibility and feature competition (think how Android has effectively muscled out alternative ‘open source’ mobile OS’s and functions as one of the most expansive data collection systems in the world). It likely would not be as immediate as this suggests, for exactly the same reason Linux is so preferable to proprietary operating systems, but examples like Zorin’s successful marketing campaign and paid services do point to a trajectory of corporatization separate from what exists in Redhat and Ubuntu.

As liberal states seek more power over information and computing, they will direct regulations into favourable conditions for capitalization, as they always do, and will reward corporations that comply. The big threat is the amount of resources that private capital wields with state support and how this may pressure independent developers to comply as well.

I think it is unironically very funny to assert something is real just because it’s normalized in medicine. As we all know, medsci is historically very conscious of social and material conditions and is not subject to the distortions of the classes of people who have access to that authority, and no new research is relevant ever. I guess that means black women really do feel less pain, trans people only started existing forty years ago, and skulls can actually teach us about racial intelligence (people were arguing for phrenology until the late twentieth century). That you’re arguing this during a period where eating disorders are very visible in popular culture is also just too perfect. Could you then, cite any articles or studies you’ve engaged with to build your oh-so-well-informed-and-underthought worldview? I have just a few off the top of my list:

The Obesity Myth: Why America’s Obsession with Weight Is Hazardous to your Health, Campos, 2004.

Yamawaki, Niwako, Christina Riley, Claudia Rasmussen, and Mary Cook, “The Effects of Obesity Myths on Perceptions of Sexual Assault Victims and Perpetrators’ Credibility,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33 (4): 662-85, 2018.

Ramos, Salas, X, M Forhan, and A. M Sharma, “Diffusing Obesity Myths,” Clinical Obesity, 4(3), 2014.

Pollack, Catherine C, “Characterizing the Prevalence of Obesity Misinformation, Factual Content, Stigma, and Positivity on the Social Media Platform Reddit Between 2011 and 2019: Infodemiology Study,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24 (12), 2022.

Lindeman, Tracey, Bleed: Destroying Myths and Misogyny in Endometriosis Care, 2024.

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/a23-refcomm-d-annotated.pdf (2023 American Medical Association House of Delegates statement against the use of BMI).

There’s some social and medical criticisms of the concept of obesity as well as how it is measured and medicalized.

This is all of course besides the fact that, regardless of whether obesity is understood properly, its presence in this original joke is in fact still fascist and still functions to normalize the fundamental values of fatphobia as they intersect with transphobia, racism, misogyny, and ableism. “I think you’re over thinking this,” is a staple phrase of fascism. Maybe you should fucking think a bit.

Yes, I know better than you, get the fuck over it. You can’t even grasp how these forms of oppression are intersectional and you have the vibes of a socialist boyfriend who doesn’t do the dishes. I’m sure you’re very satisfied identifying every problem you have with the system from your limited perspective, knowledge, and empathy.

Won’t be responding to anything else other than your reading list on anti-fascist scholarship or writing related to these topics.

Oh look, another Lemmy “leftist,” who thinks systemic oppression is just when people are mean about how you look. We all know you’re a lib dude, nobody else is so self-righteous about aggrieved entitlement to bigotry. You want to feel like a good person without actually understanding what that means and putting the work into changing.

If you can’t tell the difference between anti-fascism and pacifism, you better stay the fuck on your couch, we don’t want you out here. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have a story about some smug fuck lib man showing up to events and saying some edgelord power-fantasy shit before saying some bigoted shit. You aren’t a fucking socialist if you subscribe to liberal constructions of human value, you dense chud.