Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d’être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That’s the misery of the world of work: it’s not usually the best who get into management positions, it’s not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It’s the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can’t afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It’s only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.

Don’t clog the toilets. It’s not the c-suites who have to clean that up.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

It’s not some anonymous force forcing you to act like many of your fellow citizens do on social media. It’s what the US believes, I’m affraid. Even on Lemmy. It’s all “I don’t like Trump” but strangely enough many still agree to some of his key positions when his name is not mentioned. It’s weird.

You might want to check out the Patriot act (especially section 215) and how that plays into your believe of your constitutional rights. If there are any questions, just ask Clarence Thomas - he knows his stuff. I really don’t get how you could be so blind to issues like that just because this post is about China. This is not a popularity contest - it is not US vs the world. This is about your rights, your data and your democracy. I’m from Europe and I’m kinda getting tired of reminding people from the US that your blind patriotism is just that…a blind spot that is used against the US citizens on every corner.

1984 is already a reality - in every country of the word, especially the US. Apple’s famous Superbowl commercial from the same year, which suggested that data privacy (…) was important with regard to their strongest competitor at the time (IBM), does nothing to change this. On the contrary - none of this was even halfway true even back then. I really don’t get why people think this is just an issue in China. It is an issue all over the world. For years and years.

That is certainly not wrong. However, I believe that it’s not just the Chinese but that the US government (and other states around the world) has very far-reaching access to its citizens’ data as well. Among other things, the Patriot Act makes it very easy to demand user data from companies without appropriate checks and balances, if the NSA is not already aware anyway. Without somewhat decent legal regulations such as those that exist in the EU for example, citizens have to trust that the state will not abuse this largely unregulated power. With regard to the question of who will form the next US government, I see a significant problem in this context: I think that Trump’s right wing GOP will use this power against their political opponents and also, as a precaution, against ordinary citizens. I don’t think they would shy away from setting up a surveillance state based on the Chinese model - the conditions for this are certainly met in the current legal situation.

I think the only way to solve this problem for good would be to tie social media accounts to proof of identity. However, apart from what would certainly be a difficult technical implementation, this would create a whole bunch of different problems. The benefits would probably not outweigh the costs.

Well, unfortunately, the internet and especially social media is still the main source of information for more and more people, if not the only one. For many, it is also the only place where public discourse takes place, even if you can hardly call it that. I guess we are probably screwed.

Sure, 1$ for 5.000 high quality posts - but only if it is content that you would otherwise only find in scientific journals; no AI stuff, of course.

This is a terrible idea for a site that relies solely on user-generated content and even user-moderation. It’s not like Twitter hasn’t tried this before - didn’t work out so well, I’d say. But hey, this concept probably works for the upper management. I guess it doesn’t matter to them if all that’s left is scorched earth, as long as they can cash out.

You can find a lot of stuff over at hugging face - open source stuff as well. This for example for background removal.

This is presumably not a bad thing, as Google would most likely have benefited the most from this, especially as the so-called “privacy sandbox” that Google had planned as a replacement or server-side tracking are even more difficult to avoid. The “privacy sandbox” in particular would have been more of a competitive advantage for Google because, as the provider of Chrome, they are the only ones who have comprehensive access to aggregated user data that is collected directly via the browser.

Thank you for your reply. I think there is little point in continuing this thread as we are unlikely to agree. As I have said several times, I am of the opinion that migration policy is not the serious problem that many people think it is - including you, apparently. Accordingly, I also think it is wrong to say that the AfD is pursuing fact-based policies. Rather, I think that the AfD uses (and promotes) people’s vague fears in order to push through its political agenda, which incidentally is not at all in the interests of the “little people” when it comes to economic policy, for example. I am also fundamentally of the opinion that politics must be designed for the long term - this is an absolute necessity, as political decisions always set the course for the future. I think it is naive to believe that political decisions can be made without any long-term effect. That’s why you have to know where you want to go and weigh up what effects political decisions will have. This applies to migration policy as well as to all other policy areas. Apart from that, we also have to deal with problems such as climate change, which of course require extremely long-term planning. Like the AfD, you can simply claim that this problem doesn’t exist and that you can simply carry on as before, but that doesn’t change the fact that climate change is real and needs to be dealt with in a meaningful way.

Yes, it is somewhat true that the AfD addresses people’s problems - at least they make it seem that way. But their rhetoric also ensures that people blame the wrong groups for these problems. The conservatives in the USA do the same, as do the right-wing populists in other countries. The Nazis in the Third Reich also did exactly that - it’s nothing new.

Believe me, I have tried to understand why so many people don’t see through these simple tricks and even allow themselves to be misled into voting against their own interests. I have had discussions with AfD supporters, both online and in real life. I have come to the conclusion that these people are either hopelessly under-informed because they only consume the corresponding social media content, or accept everything their leaders put in front of them in a sect-like manner - even the most ludicrous false claims that can be easily refuted. In both cases, I have very rarely been able to convince people that they are wrong to blame immigrants for all their problems. Over time I have become so disillusioned that I no longer believe that these people can be persuaded en masse with rational arguments - they simply want to believe that they are right and go through the greatest lengths to keep believing that.

However, I am not prepared to abandon a fact-based political discourse just because some particularly loud and snivelling people make life too easy for themselves. So I don’t think that the left should also spread lies, rely on sub-complex explanations and blame some make-believe enemies. Nor do I think that is even possible.

So I must honestly say that I have lost faith in the functioning of democracy. Not because of any military thread or something, but because of the convenience and idiocy of the people. Maybe it can get better when the right-wingers are in government and fail completely - or it will get even worse when they get in a position to impose their inhuman ideology on all moderates in autocratic structures by force. In Germany that has already happened once with disastrous consequences and now we are on the best way to make history repeat itself.

The AfD will always remain unelectable for me - if only because of its openly fascist rhetoric and the associated ideas, which I reject as immoral and inhumane. The claim that the AfD is not a dangerous radical right-wing party is simply false - see Björn Höcke, for example, who is obviously a Nazi with links to various anti-constitutional groups. In addition, their EU election manifesto denies climate change, wants to limit freedom of movement in Europe and wants to abolish the euro as a common currency as well as the GDPR alongside other protectionist, anti-European demands across the board. In my opinion, all these demands are completely absurd and only show how little substance the AfD really has. All they are doing is profiting from the fear-based mood towards immigration that they themselves have helped to create. I can’t understand how anyone can vote for such a party.

What I mean is that the right-wing parties in Germany have focused their entire election campaign on the issue of migration - even the moderate conservatives (CDU). I think this one-sided explanatory approach is wrong and dangerous. On the one hand, I think it is a case of problem shifting. Important issues such as economic and energy policy or climate protection take a back seat to this one, disproportionately presented issue. On the other hand, I think that the isolationist policy advocated by the extreme right (in Germany, the AfD) is an outdated approach, as it does not solve the problem of illegal migration, but merely creates a counterproductive negative mindset towards immigration. And this is precisely what I consider to be very problematic: due to demographic developments, Germany urgently needs workers from abroad - not only, but especially in so-called low-skilled jobs such as nursing. This fact is being completely overlooked in the political debate, which in this country is characterized by xenophobic and even openly racist rhetoric. In short, I believe that the focus of right-wing parties on migration policy is nothing but empty polemics that is based on attributing blame instead of constructive proposals for solutions - we have other problems that need to be solved. I assume that the situation is similar in other European countries.

I don’t understand how anyone can think that migration policy is the EU’s main problem. And I really don’t get why someone should vote for a party that does not share their own convictions because of EU migration policy.

The saddest thing about this is that the Europeans and especially the Germans should really know better. But no, all the lessons from our dark history seem to have been forgotten - or they are simply ignored so that one can once again live in the comfortable world of simple explanations where there is always some minority to blame.

I had somewhat hoped that my fellow countrymen in Germany would not fall for the obtuse populism of the right, but that is exactly what has happened.

I’m afraid there’s nothing left to counter this, because voters obviously no longer care about rational arguments and don’t even want to acknowledge the real problems of our time. They make it easy for themselves and just blame everything on illegal migration or whatever - just as the right-wingers tell them to do.

In this reality characterized by stupidity and false attributions of blame, it is hardly surprising that important but somewhat abstract topics such as data protection are no longer of interest to the masses. It’s enough to make you cry.