After some thought, my new inclination:

Whether intrinsic value exists or not is unknowable to us, specifically because we did not create our own universe. I can’t say for certain there is value in truth, justice, love, etc. beyond what we humans assign to these things. Yet, I can’t say for certain that there is not. Intrinsic value by its very nature and definition is a mystery.

Could be. Interesting tactic. Energy does indeed seem to intrinsically exist. Existence does seem to exist. Scarcity does seem to exist. Even shared feelings of value for things that are hard to make a logical case for them seem to intrinsically exist. Yet, I feel unsatisfied that intrinsic value exists. Maybe I mean something harder to define.

I like this idea of life in general defining inherent value. What if we encountered an alien race that developed completely separate from us and we happened to view certain common things as having intrinsic value? Could we make a case that these concepts of intrinsic value truly exist?

Yet, if life itself were high on that list we might be a bit bias.

Say, existence = value maybe? Or, energy = value?

A good question. Does value exist without an entity to experience and quantify it? Is there value in a universe without humans - assuming such a universe could exist?

I’m a programmer. If someone had an interest they could preserve all of your self-hosted data without your permission. I think it is worth considering tho, if all of this is valuable then it would be ideal if we could get that value into the accounts of people in need rather than the alternative.

Interesting take. I like the light philosophical bend there with the mental value. I think you’re right about that. I have been more considering whether the cumulative data of a platform like Lemmy as a whole is something that we as the users/server should be asserting our ownership of. Or, whether it is effectively worthless.

An interesting thought. I’m not sure this is entirely true though in many jurisdictions. It is clearly possible to post something on someone else’s server and still maintain ownership of it. Platforms like SoundCloud have you specify a license in the ui client at the time of upload. While this might seem performative, it is explicit.

Thanks for sharing. I honestly was wondering how people were thinking about this. I was wondering why not include a license specified per post in the client UI as that seemed quite explicit. Yet, I was wondering how this might prohibit federation from being controlled at the server level.

I had considered ads in clients and llm training. Both of which, people in need should be paid for if it is using content they generated if at all possible.

Might we easily make it more clear that the poster or the server owns them outright?

Hypothetically, a corporation federates and wants to monetize my posts. Can they do this? I’m not personally fixated on ownership (which could easily be viewed as my systemic privilege), but the pathway out of this type of thought in general doesn’t seem to be yielding all power to already powerful growth-based corporations. I didn’t create the current systems, but I do acknowledge their existence.

This is such an odd title to an article. Is the fallacy ever a good thing? The fallacy itself is a concept - so not really good or bad. Using it as a logical premise in an argument is recognized to be problematic.

Are we actually asking: is ever good to keep doing something you yourself hate only because you yourself already spent money on it? The answer seems clearly to be no.

Agreed. Always a good thought to have when one is considering going down that road. Is the future predictable enough to really expect that particular end?

I think you’re onto something saying toxic is a pretty unspecific term to use when talking about such things. Maybe it would be a better conversation to ask: when do the ends justify the means?

I think you’re right that there are people out there trying to manipulate and influence social media - I mean even that platforms themselves do this to a certain extent.

The idea that they purposely try to make it toxic to push the more intellectually-honest, emotionally-controlled people out of the conversation is the interesting part to me.

This particular facet feels less like intentional manipulation and more like a side-effect of our platforms and how they function.

Intriguing. I don’t totally know what I think about this argument. A purposeful initiative to make politics toxic to get people to stop paying attention. It’s not one I had totally considered before. You think that’s really going on?

I have had many experiences with real people not on the internet that seem to fixate largely on politics and believe so fervently that they are right that they allow themselves to become toxic. I always thought it was a kind of inconsistent latent belief in utilitarianism combined with overconfidence.