It also is true that ideologically-motivated-coding is an actual thing.

Imagine someone hating that their propaganda gets deleted by moderators, so they make it difficult for moderators to function that way…

while they, themselves, just so a SELECT on their DB to see the images, to delete all the ones they don’t want…

Remember, it isn’t only corporations who are committed to enforcing the Enshittocene, ideologues do, too.

Those comments are proven false by the dot-4 release of Lemmy, but I’m not accusing the Lemmy devs of being the way those post-quoted comments said.

I AM stating, bluntly, that deliberate torque on the use of ANY aspect of an app, is a thing, now, and need be considered as ONE of the possibilities.

_ /\ _

To me, such a thing should be the default, so that anybody wanting to quote an item would know, without having to succeed in contacting the source, whether it is possible.

This would enable journalism to do a better job, for 1 thing.

Somehow get them to have a separate feed/account for each writer, as well as each section,

and only subscribe to those subsections of their output YOU care about.

I don’t expect ANY newspaper to have the working-brains to understand this concept.

Enforcement/enshittification is the only religion which fits in the heads of “executives”, nowadays, right?

Unfortunately, that’s the proper answer.

IF lemmy.ml is admin’d by the Lemmy devs, themselves,

AND their ideology/prejudice is being obstructed by the Lemmy-verse,

THEN wouldn’t it be rational for them to engineer-in to Lemmy, itself, protections for their ideology?

Breaking the Fediverse’s ability to “manage” them?

or breaking the Fediverse’s ability to have any alternative-ideology be its core??

I’m thinking they could either adulterate privacy, deliberately, or they could force blocking to be porous, or something…

IOW, I’m thinking that it is strategically-incompetent to allow tankies to own our core tech, exactly as it is strategically-incompetent to allow right-wing highjackers-of-our-countries to do so.

?

I see an alignment-problem:

IF it is paid by the job-seekers, who may be destitute, THEN the rich job-seekers distort the market in their favor.

ELSIF it is paid by the job-posters, who definitely intend to underpay all whom they hire, then it has motivation to help misrepresent things.

Enshittification is inevitable, either-way.

I hold that the Fediverse NEEDS a LinkedIn replacement, the problem is that a healthy such replacement is in the Public interest, & therefore the Public ought be paying for it.

Which will never happen, in the lobbied-puppets “electorate” world.

It isn’t even a political question, left or right, it is a market-integrity question.

The greater the integrity of the employment-market, the stronger the country, obviously.

Therefore removing the job-board/job-market from ALL special-interest-groups/torquers/machiavellians can significantly benefit the country(ies) who impliment correctly, in the long-term/strategic scope.

_ /\ _