Harp the Wigglytuff @wigglytuffitout@computerfairi.es

i feel like between my bachelor bio degree and all my years of being disabled/a professional patient, i end up regularly smuggling out knowledge to my friends

"man i wish i knew why i was tired and my hair was so brittle -" "HAVE YOUR DOC CHECK YOUR THYROID LEVELS AND CONSIDER ADDING A MULTIVITAMIN, ARE YOU TAKING METHYLFOLATE? HERE LET ME EXPLAIN THE MOTHERFUCKER GENE TO YOU -"

@Pixley it means your laptop's got sour cream and tomatoes on it

@abby people who get really dramatic about it are likely nocebo but it's also a hella common migraine trigger, like red wine, chocolate, and nitrates/nitrites (cured meat)

....migraines are sort of bullshit in general.

i want to be able to eat kfc and ranch doritos in the same day dangit 8(

@abby but it gives me migraines if i eat too much :(

....i mean i eat it anyway cos it's delicious but sometimes i get got

anyway purism is peak regrettable cishet upper class white dudebro and proof that silicon valley needs some sort of mass relocation program so that every single person within it is some sort of minority who understands that technology can and will be (mis)used to harass/injure people by those invested in doing so, and that blue-sky "i believe the best uwu ethics!!!" thinking will not prevent this but instead enable evil send toot

"if you don't like it, just do it yourself the way you want" is a bullshit attitude that pushes people away from open source culture/software and is fundamentally classist, ableist, etc, , because it ignores that computer science is trying its damndest to remain a cishet white techbro clubhouse. this attitude is a nice slice of victim blaming - "well it's your fault for being denied the opportunities to have been denied"

don't @ me i'm right and know it.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology wanting people to only say nice things - or otherwise fuck off and do it themselves - and dismissing genuine opinions as trolling is you doing this job for the company, wanting to throttle people's genuine opinions and reactions with "but be nicer!!!".

who benefits when the nasty truth is suppressed for nice lies?

what sort of tactic is choosing a polite lie over a mean-sounding truth?

is that what you want to do? is that the life you want to live?

up to you - my point's made.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology they are wanting to throttle the true reputation and reception of their products. "say it nicely!" is not something that should apply if you truly believe the free market will prevail.

there are other companies who operate that way. i would suggest you don't do their work for them. it won't get you fame, glory, thanks, or a payout.

want to see how this attitude plays out in an entirely different sphere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2V3TZppXA8 here you go.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology i wouldn't like it, you're right.

but i also know that if i'm being a big enough dumbshit, i'm going to deserve being called a dumbshit.

this very much includes moves that put other people in danger. for example: "what the fuck! EYES ON THE ROAD, NOT YOUR PHONE, DUMBSHIT!"

and also, i do not think you should be worrying about the feelings of companies.

if a company seeks to censor their feedback by requesting only nice words, then they are wanting to limit the market. >

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology first you objected to any such posts because it would hurt feelings. now you say that there is a better way. which one is it?

why should people have to censor and tiptoe around a company's feelings instead of saying a shitty thing is shitty?

the company will not love you or pay you for valiantly leaping to defend them from mean words when people are sharing their genuine opinions. remember, this is not free open source development: this is a company, out to make money, not friends.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology from an end-user perspective, not being able to report anyone makes it drastically LESS safe than twitter, facebook, etc.

if you cannot report harassment, and ask for it to be dealt with, that is a drastically unsafe environment.

you will find that this is why many, many people on mastodon have LEFT twitter, facebook, and so on. i would urge you to sit down and actually LISTEN to what happens when moderation does not exist, and when reports do not exist (or are not acted on).

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology in essence, your argument is now like someone saying:

"don't talk about the Ford Pinto exploding when it gets rear-ended! you are making the poor bunny that designed the car sad. if you don't like your car exploding when it gets rear-ended, you should just build your own car! saying bad things about the Ford company is just trolling."

cool story, but it won't help anyone burning worth a fucking damn.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology the disabled requirement makes the users much less safe, and it also makes mastodon less safe.

if you think user reports are optional, i invite you to consider why people use them, and the fact that not every user is going to be acting in good faith.

if they improve their product, i'd be willing to change my tune. however, this is a pattern of shady behavior, when their product is basically "you can trust us, we're good people". so i'll be dubious.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology you are indeed wrong because this is no longer in the realm of open source. we're now discussing a product that is being sold to basic consumers who are not, and cannot, be in that open source community - that is the point of the service. "you don't have a computer science degree, so trust us to figure this out and we'll deliver what we promise to you for a fee."

there are, of course, other issues with "just do it yourself" in open source - but i'll let others tackle that.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology if the product is shit, people deserve to know it is shit. this goes double if the product is shit in a way that is going to make people unsafe.

the safety of people > the small bunny's feelings.

and, trusting in the mechanics of the market?

the safety of people > the feelings of a corporation.

the utility of a product > the feelings of a corporation.

the truth of how a product works > the feelings of a corporation.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology and honestly? "well just do better!" is also quite silly, in my eyes. it means that you're willing to let people who *can't* do better - because of circumstance, disability, etc. - be screwed, because you're valuing the dev's feelings above functionality, above safety of those using the service, about safety of those around the service, and above those market laws actually working ("bad product gets shown as bad, so doesn't get sold").

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology honestly, you are putting your faith in "the market laws".

i think that's flawed, but putting trust in market laws means... THE CONSUMERS AND POTENTIAL CONSUMERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE PRODUCT, AND WARN OTHERS IF IT IS UNSAFE. so, this is a constructive part of the process that you believe will drive development to a better product.

if someone gets sad whenever their product is met with genuine critique, they don't have the mettle to be in business.

@alexcleac@mastodon.technology it's also worth noting that not only do i think purism deserves all the heat for this they're getting - and the consumer word-on-the-street as "a rubbish product peddled by liars" - but it's also something that is making their promised product broken.

with no reports, many masto instances are preemptively muting/blocking purism's, as they will not let their users be made unsafe. but purism still promises access to masto at large.