In the absence of the internet, voices were still heard globally. But I get your point. It's a mess. I don't know that there's a solution. I suspect there isn't.

But what I do suggest is that we can do without social media and be better off for it. It doesn't right the ship, but at least we can slow the rate at which we take on water.

I actually compartmentalize forums and social media. I don't think online discussions by knitting fans is more toxic than Thursday night in person knitting groups are (or were). The problem is when the crap leaks over from social media. When your forum is about the finer points of hand building ukuleles and somebody posts rant about Jews, that's where the friction resides. But the difference is that forums like that can and should be moderated for topic, it's not a Wild West. There is supposed to be a point.

Slashdot is an interesting example. I don't read posts about climate change or piracy any more because the camps appear instantly, there is nothing new to say (EVER), and nobody is listening. They're talking at one another. But... except for the copy/paste morons, at least people have to make an effort to present a cogent point, or moderation usually works enough to hit -1. But there is still far too much reward for pandering.

I risk undoing my own point when I say I do appreciate a contrarian. I can have a good discussion with somebody who holds views wildly divergent than my own, provided they've thought them through and come by them honestly. In fact, I love it.

given the reach of corporations and the fact of world trade, maybe individual citizens having global connection via the internet is better than not having it?

I wouldn't extend my argument to the entire internet. I think there's a great deal of it that is wonderful. I'm ranting about social media in the broadest sense. I like commerce via the internet... mostly. Although again there is a dark side to modernity. We are advertised at and sold to 24 hours a day, and that's new. When I was a child, most stores closed at 6 and almost none were open Sundays. Instant gratification meant leaving the house. It's no wonder savings rates have plummeted.

But I wouldn't wish it away.

The world does not need to hear from most people. And by most people I mean a staggeringly large percentage of the population. Including me, in case you're leaping to point that out... I agree. What the average person has to say should mostly be heard by their family, some of it by their community, perhaps a tiny bit of it by their township, and virtually none of it beyond that. The idea of global connection as a positive force is a delusion.

I believe that people are generally good. And good people can connect locally with other good people. You know who has the greatest need to reach out of their swamps to find other like-minded folks? Shitty people. It's those representing the worst of humanity who find connection online the most attractive, because exposing it in person is dangerous. If you hate women, the internet is your perfect escape. You can commiserate with your misogynistic brethren 24 hours a day. Then you put on your game face and hide IRL.

We have a word for it when people harboring some dark tendencies reach out into cyberspace and evolve their positions. It's called "radicalization". And why are they radicalized? Because every jackass can be heard. And those shrieking the loudest aren't our best.

Know what we don't have a word for? The process of that person reaching out and discovering things aren't that bad, and choosing positive directions.

Would we really lose much of value if all social media suddenly vanished? Well, unless you're prepared to defend the idea that people didn't lead vibrant lives in 2002, the answer is mostly no.

Our brains did not evolve to live in this mess of connection and isolation. We've been beta testing a new way of being for the last 20 years, and the data doesn't look good.

Well, I suppose in the abstract that "someday" is probably correct. But the hackers have had 18 years, to very limited success.

Perhaps, but I don't think they'll act in bad faith here. I'll bet they try to breadcrumb people in a positive fashion.

They are making major concessions here - ones with real negative consequences and compliance costs. And while MS has a checkered past in some areas (to put it mildly) I doubt they will sabotage API stability in this case.

Sure, watch closely, and stay on it as the long term expiration of this agreement approaches. But celebrate the win. MS really did move a long way here

I don't disagree in principle with your points. I have personally hired remote workers even before the pandemic because they were- and are- the right people for the job. They are exceptional - and so they are exceptions.

And the costs for floor space are real. No doubt. And the problems you mentioned with the office are real. And yet in my observation the results outweigh the costs by a wide enough margin.

In this post I have to speak about the aggregate. There are exceptions.

Blah blah blah. Textbook response - blame the observe.

I don't think you understand "Entertainment".

Not everybody has been fine during COVID. I've been in the industry since 1992. I led software development teams/projects from 2015-2024, and in my experience productivity, creativity, and cooperative solutioning all suffered during COVID and afterwards, and have not yet recovered.

If your job is to just be "the guy", with no external dependencies, and you do the IT equivalent of stamping out widgets every day, then sure. I'll agree you can be just as productive as you were before. But the moment your work depends on creative thinking and collaboration, I have seen no reason to think that work from home results in equivalent or better outcomes.

The benefit in WFH is employee-side. And make no mistake - I'm not trying to minimize that. I actually think that we should accept "lessened" delivery in favour of better conditions for workers. I really do. I just object to this continuous whitewashing of WFH as having no down sides.

The problems of studying productivity from home are the same as those of measuring it at work. Neither side does a good job - nor can they. People are far too diverse and crafty.

If you fly off a bike at 50 kph it dies not matter in the slightest whether you were on a 750 pound cruiser or a tiny e-bike.

E-bikes are under regulated.

The litigious DNA waters are already murky enough.

I didn't know that threatening people with their jobs unless they do whatever it takes to make you happy only works on new folks.

Remember that in the eyes of the current administration, investors have only one purpose. That is to move money from the private sector into the hands of the company. After that, they can go hang. Come to think of it, that's the purpose of... well, everybody else. They are a capital pool. And once they have no capital, they are no longer a concern. Effectively they cease to exist.