It’s interesting to me that we don’t do this for all industries. Like, if a big auto manufacturer or textile company sets up shop, the local power company is compelled to build more power plants for them (sometimes the power company eats the cost, sometimes a deal with the provider, etc. See the article). Monopolies are weird.

important repository of similar content here. Thank you University of Utah.

A funny application of the law. Seems a little silly as an answer here.

(Made my day that somebody read the article! I feel like these technical pieces flounder in obscurity.)

I find the different ways places answer this question really interesting. By this, I mean the systems we’ve had in place, the committees and applications and rules, for power providing the whole time.

It is interesting because power is a privately owned monopoly that we regulate to the extreme; so we get all sorts of weird relationships and arrangements. Now we see them all getting stress tested.

Home grown, local eugenics.

Kinda like how picking who to marry is also eugenics.

Yes, let’s have this discussion.

Personally, I think screening for disease is a win. Give that service by default. Though we need this happening where somebody can check the data (grift would be very bad in this space).

I think this might partially be a case of different uses of the word ‘burner’ - what they describe is not strong opsec, but it is a way to reduce how much you provide for free (which is often more work for the company to get). By this, I mean not providing so many photos to track your every social visit and movement, not immediately providing life updates (ie, relationships, purchases).

Will meta find out most of this? yes. But I suspect it will be slower, more error prone, and sometimes more costly. Which don’t seem like a bad thing. Is there a good technical term for this? Hardening?

Also, I’ll note that the point of the suggestions is to reduce noise in a persons life, not to go off the grid. I think the blog is trying to be more about curtailing and removing sources of distraction.

As you write up the alternatives (especially RSS and adblockers! These can be low barrier to entry), it would be great to link them from this part 1! I feel like the ask and text for part 1 is roughly the right size, but the action feels very big and scary to folks (and giving a reassurance early in the text that you can replace stuff and meet your needs might be helpful).

The topic is important, the timing is good (just in time for some new-years resolutions), and the writing is effective. Thank you for taking on the project.

I had hoped that the first suggestion in part 1 would be more accessible than ‘delete the accounts and create burner accounts’ - we’ve chosen the most effective but biggest ask, and I don’t think this post quite provides the infrastructure required for many people to make the change. FB is used by many folks as social media; the keeping track of friends, events, and family can’t really be done from a burner account (your messages alone will identify you entirely to meta).

And I have a personal pet peeve on this topic that’s triggered by the last section: I believe that mindfulness is a good way to improve internet use, but I think we’ve proven as a society that most people can’t implement this sort of self-reflection and intentionality without more structure. Where’s the tooling to remove dark patterns, automatically ask these questions after an app use, etc. ?

The argument here being that stopantisemitism is zionist and thus pro Israel? Sure. I still think a better title would name the organization. What’s the argument for the vague and not specific title?

I am not interested in telling you that you have done bad. I am interested in telling you that you could do better. I think this change is an improvement because:

I think there is an opportunity to make a more specific point, that requires no analogy, is shorter and more precise, still works towards your political priorities (assuming you do want Israel shamed for this kind of behavior), and (I think) has a better chance of making specific, incremental, progress in political discourse.

Yes, they are pro-Israel. They are also an american grift that’s very profitable.

I feel like you’re saying 2 is an even number, and I’m saying it’s also literally 2. Specificity has value, and I think there should be a good reason to be vague instead of specific.

I will ask again: why is my argument for changing the title stronger if stopantisemetism were anti-Israel?

Please explain why my “criticism” would be stronger if stopantisemitism were ever an anti-israeli body. I don’t understand that at all. This would show they have principles, instead of being a grift.

Plenty of other orgs have useful idiots and fans. They are ‘pro-Israel’, but I don’t think that’s the most useful descriptor or context.

I agree with the analogy. Your simple point is a fine one.

I think there is an opportunity to make a more specific point, that requires no analogy, is shorter and more precise, still works towards your political priorities (assuming you do want Israel shamed for this kind of behavior), and (I think) has a better chance of making specific, incremental, progress in political discourse. That change is to replace “Pro-Israel group” with “stopantisemitism” in the title. The analogy can be easily made in the OP body, comments, and likely springs to any readers mind. It also removes the potential for kibbitzing by apologists about how ‘oh but this is really an american org’.

That’s the simple change that I’m suggesting.

To check that I understand you: you are saying that Israel has used the label of antisemitism in a dishonest, vague, and harmful way as a tool to silence critics?

If so, we agree on this.

You are also saying that Israel deserves to be blamed/shamed for this behavior?

If so, we agree on this.

To me, this news item is about a particularly heinous (and I believe fundamentally American) grift that needs to be noticed and focused on. I think ‘Pro-Israel group’ could be replaced with the more precise and explicit “stopantisemitism” and it would improve the title. I think there are better (and endlessly many) examples of the government of israel doing this, but fewer opportunities to explicitly pile on to stopantisemitism. I am making a quibble about priorities.

I do not endorse the policy of “your group/organization is represented by all people who claim to advocate for it”. I do not want leftism, Palestine, the US, democracy, lemmy, or any other organization to be judged on this basis. So I must ask for a more direct tie, if there are any.

I would love this source: do they receive substantial funding, infrastructure and facilities, or personnel explicitly from Israel? What is their explicit tie to the government?

AFAIK (and I would really like to be wrong), this is a passion project by some absolutely terrible grifters.

I do think “StopAntisemitism” deserves being in the title; it’s a particularly loud group, not particularly representative of Israel the government (or jewish folks).

Just an absolutely abhorent organization, which deserves to be despised. No good work, just a racist organization focused on directing other racists (and actual antisemites!) away from real problems.

The linked article text is much more lukewarm than the headline.

I was surprised/disappointed tbh. But I think you should resist updating towards agreeing with the headline. Brexit is still too ongoing and close to judge carefully, but in the data it seems like it was washed out by the energy crisis and covid across many statistics, if I’m reading right?