anarchiddy

joined 9 months ago
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Sure, but the point of that idea is that capitalist exploitation can't be addressed through personal consumption choices to begin with.

I guess fine, that person is making a shitty choice. But moralizing over consumption habits is pretty counterproductive IMO.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I just dont think it's ever really that clear-cut.

Be kind to people, but be ruthless to systems.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Sure, except a part of the critique is an acknowledgement that exploitation begets exploitation - most of the working class has only a limited amount of time, resources, or energy to participate in this level of market research before buying anything.

I find this satire to be similar to Milton Freedman libertarians who think consumers should simply know what theyre buying instead of having government consumer protections.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 71 points 1 week ago (25 children)

I dont really know what to make of this mene, but this isnt really what 'no ethical consumption' is intended to communicate.

The challenge isn't to abstain from unethical practices directly like owning a slave yourself, the challenge is to avoid consumption that involves exploitative structures at all. It's a structural critique, not an individualized one - exploitation is so pervasive in capitalist production that it's nearly impossible to avoid entirely even if you're an activist with complete knowledge and can dedicate a large amount of energy perfecting ethical consumption

It bothers me how cynical this meme is, honestly.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

A perfect example of how and why capitalism creates and entrenches poverty.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

China could literally solving world hunger and the US press would complain about it being a plot to ruin US farmers.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago

In theory, sure - it's only a concern if you have a work-managed device.

In concept, though, there are more parties with partial control/access to your device from whom you only have a tenuous protection at-best.

Normalizing the practice of automatic archival of encrypted communication is bad. I don't think that's a particularly spicy take. "They say it won't be used except in these specific circumstances" is no better than a fig-leaf, especially when those types of promises have been repeatedly broken.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

An archiving feature that highlights a reality that many people arent already aware of - that encryption is meaningless if you dont have ultimate control of the device you are decrypting it on.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Each morning I wake up and think to myself, "what fresh new hell awaits me today?"

There are no caveats to this that can make me feel better about it. This is a normalization of what I already new to be true - that my phone has never actually been mine, and any controll I thought i had can and will be taken from me at any moment.

view more: ‹ prev next ›