Bluesky goes into high gear as users flee X

[cytg111]

Nah, forums will always rule supreme.

RFC1459, what is your standard?
Thought so.
Check mate.

 

[manly]

Honestly just seems like you have some weird axe to grind. I don't have a horse in the race aside from "social networks should be controlled by people not corporations or governments" and I truly do not care what the tech stack is so long as it enables that. I doubt most people do either. Not sure why you keep repeating this line about people using AP applications being weirdos rather than people getting needs met that are not by corporate social.

I'm pretty sure nobody actually needs and few actually want corporate social. It's just the only viable option historically. Twitter killed off it's competition in the early days and Facebook bought out most potential competitors to both themselves and Twitter. There was no credibly community driven alternative during those times that had any sort of significant adoption.

If "corporate social" is the only viable option "historically," then what are we really arguing for here? Fairies and unicorns? Can you name a single popular social network that isn't controlled by a corporation?

Believe me, I'm as anti-corporate* as the next American (which means I've fairly moderate) but I don't see how you're going to roll back to the 20th Century Internet. Unfortunately, today's America is so dominated by corporate interests that it's become almost impossible to return to the old Silicon Valley that incubated successes out of garages.

At this point, we almost have to settle for the lesser of all evils. Take your 2004 Google if you can find it, instead of 2025 Alphabet.

* I'm not trying to sound like a shill for big tech. Their capitulation to Trump is absolutely disgusting and unforgivable.

 

[nakedfrog]

RFC1459, what is your standard?
Thought so.
Check mate.

Uh... I was playing Clue, WTF you talking about with "Checkmate"?
Anyway, Mrs. Peacock in the Conservatory with the Wrought Iron Dildo.

 

[cytg111]

You win

 

[manly]

And yet another tech billionaire reveals himself.

Tech billionaire Marc Benioff says Trump should deploy National Guard to San Francisco

Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff says President Trump is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ivwshane]

And yet another tech billionaire reveals himself.

Tech billionaire Marc Benioff says Trump should deploy National Guard to San Francisco

Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff says President Trump is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.

www.yahoo.com

wtf?

I wasn’t originally for the banning of being able to be a billionaire but they are clearly a danger to society.

 

[cytg111]

Should probably do something about it before robo dogs with mounted guns becomes a thing.

 

[cytg111]

Putin did one thing when he came to power... Cause he had to take the power from someone else.

He bitch slapped the FUCK out of the oligarchs and into submission. JUST SAYING.

edit: with the amount of power coupons in billionaire hands .. its only now, at least to me, the power they wield... I think it's been some time since the US has actually been a democracy. You guys faded before our eyes and we didnt even see it.
What is it they say, the devils greatest trick is to make believe he doesnt exist.
I guess we are in for another cycle. More wars to end more wars. Fuck this shit.

YO. AI Overlord? Can you do something?

 

[Brainonska511]

wtf?

I wasn’t originally for the banning of being able to be a billionaire but they are clearly a danger to society.

Billionaires are bad because they can exert disproportionate influence through their money. Thus, taxes should be so high at the top that it becomes functionally impossible to get that wealthy.

 

[Greenman]

wtf?

I wasn’t originally for the banning of being able to be a billionaire but they are clearly a danger to society.

Damn successful people have to be stopped!

 

[Brainonska511]

Damn successful people have to be stopped!

Billionaires are beyond simple success. You simply should not have so much money that you can unilaterally tip political scales.

Do you even understand what it means to have $1 billion? You could literally spend $100k/day and it would last you 27 years (and that's before accounting for any capital growth). That is simply an absurd amount of money. And those with that much have shown they have no problem buying a government for their own ends at the expense of all of us.

 

[ivwshane]

Damn successful people have to be stopped!

Were you trying to make a point or did you just want to make sure everyone knew you are a bootlicker?

Btw, you can be successful and not be a billionaire.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Billionaires are beyond simple success. You simply should not have so much money that you can unilaterally tip political scales.

Do you even understand what it means to have $1 billion? You could literally spend $100k/day and it would last you 27 years (and that's before accounting for any capital growth). That is simply an absurd amount of money. And those with that much have shown they have no problem buying a government for their own ends at the expense of all of us.

And there are about 20 centibillionaires in the world (that is, wealth >$100B).

So it's even crazier - those people could spend $1M/day for the next 274 years - not including interest - before finally running out of money.

 

[Brainonska511]

And there are about 20 centibillionaires in the world (that is, wealth >$100B).

So it's even crazier - those people could spend $1M/day for the next 274 years - not including interest - before finally running out of money.

You're just jealous of successful people that want to use their money to make us all slaves to their interests. /s

 

[Greenman]

Were you trying to make a point or did you just want to make sure everyone knew you are a bootlicker?

Btw, you can be successful and not be a billionaire.

I was agreeing with you. Everyone knows there is a finite amount of money available, so if one person has more others must have less. Or (and this is a crazy idea) quit sniveling about the success of others and work on your own.

 

[Brainonska511]

I was agreeing with you. Everyone knows there is a finite amount of money available, so if one person has more others must have less. Or (and this is a crazy idea) quit sniveling about the success of others and work on your own.

1) economics isn't zero-sum
2) look up the marginal utility of money
3) maybe try and engage in other points brought up instead of playing the typical dipshit part of glossing over the elephants. It's not about punishing "successful" people.

 

[Brovane]

Billionaires are bad because they can exert disproportionate influence through their money. Thus, taxes should be so high at the top that it becomes functionally impossible to get that wealthy.

Taylor Swift is a billionaire how would you reduce her net worth?

 

[Brainonska511]

Taylor Swift is a billionaire how would you reduce her net worth?

I'm not the expert here, but I'm sure there are ways: wealth tax, higher income tax brackets, removing tax shelters that only very wealthy people can take advantage of...

 

[K1052]

Taylor Swift is a billionaire how would you reduce her net worth?

For existing wealth the only thing that would likely stand up to legal scrutiny is to effectively island the wealth in such a way that when accessed for personal use in any way income taxes are levied at high rates above some set point.

A lot of very wealthy people borrow against their portfolios and this is not treated as income thus not taxable. It should be a priority of tax policy writers to close that loophole.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Damn successful people have to be stopped!

... From turning entire countries into their personal playthings.

I have no beef with anyone's success until they think that gives them a right to fuck with everyone else.

Their shit stinks just like anyone else's.

 

[Brainonska511]

For existing wealth the only thing that would likely stand up to legal scrutiny is to effectively island the wealth in such a way that when accessed for personal use in any way income taxes are levied at high rates above some set point.

A lot of very wealthy people borrow against their portfolios and this is not treated as income thus not taxable. It should be a priority of tax policy writers to close that loophole.

Yes. If you a) hold assets above a certain amount, and b) use those assets as collateral to get real money, that should be considered a realized gain, and it's kind of BS that it isn't.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I'm not the expert here, but I'm sure there are ways: wealth tax, higher income tax brackets, removing tax shelters that only very wealthy people can take advantage of...

-I think it would honestly be simpler to insulate government and media from billionaires than somehow try to siphon off all billionaire money.

That's the root of the problem after all.

If a billionaire wants to fuck off and go run a pet project on his private island (no kid diddling or most dangerous game shit allowed) then let them have at it where it doesn't affect the rest of us.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Taylor Swift is a billionaire how would you reduce her net worth?

Go back to the tax brackets of 1943?

 

[brycejones]

We need to also bring back rapidly escalating inheritance taxes and close the trust loopholes used by the wealthy to transfer wealth to the next generation with very little or no tax liability. It's the only way to have the "meritocracy" that supposedly conservatives want to have.

 

[ivwshane]

Taylor Swift is a billionaire how would you reduce her net worth?

Progressively higher taxes like we always did before Reagan and the party of incompetent government instituted their economic policies that led to the current situation which was a repeat of what happened in the early 1900’s where understood the ramifications of the ultra wealthy dictating policy? That’s just a guess though.