If it wasnt too many in this context youd be posting some very cute pics instead.
You could go old school and put up posters on the street. or if there are any local message boards
like physical message boards
put up a notice. Sometimes grocery stores, convenience stores, parks, bars, coffee shops or other gathering places have these.
Comparing to "homesteading" is an interesting choice. Perhaps to you the term bears connotations of freedom, community, adventure, creativity or nostalgia. But a more comprehensive view would be that the state used extreme violence to appropriate land and natural resources from an existing population. Homesteading was the subsequent privatization of the nominally public lands. It was privatized specifically into the hands of people who it was thought would be loyal and suitable, if sometimes remote, subjects of the state. Their loyalty was reinforced by arranging things so that the settlers were perpetually engaged in relationships of domination either directly or implicitly, with the prior residents of the land and other conquered people.
I guess I am wondering.... to follow your analogy... you think you/we are the settlers in this situation? Seems like Meta is the state/military. Their users are the homesteaders and the libre community is the historic but already weakened pre existing communities.
Just like so called "pioneers", meta users as people can have all kinds of good intentions at the outset however the situation is one of inherent tensions. The territory is vast and we are in a relatively weakened position. Therefor, we unable to defend it sufficiently to prevent incursions, even if we were all in agreement about wanting to. The conquering institutions will enter and they will bring people along under various pretenses, with messaging and structures that favor the extension of their power. Some settlers will defect but most will just try to make it work in the context they find themselves--- like people always do. Structurally, we are in conflict even though as individuals I don't think anyone bears particular ill will towards the other. And in both the historical and contemporary situations, the groups are not completely distinct and clear cut. Humans instantly become intertwined with one another when the opportunity arises so there is plenty of intermingling and relationships.
However if the sight of platoons and caravans approaching in the distance leads to apprehension, the ominous feeling is justified. We must represent our own interests, and what are arguably the broader interests of humanity, using tactics from diplomacy to guerilla. We should be vigilant in self defense and not wait til its too late to engage whatever potentially effective means are available to us. I am not sure what those are.
(In case it is not clear, I hope I am not read as flippantly comparing anything happening to lemmy as equivalent to the horrors of genocide. This situations has the violence dial turned waaaaay down. However there are certain narrative elements that bear a similarity so I wanted to expand upon the analogy to colonization as a positive thing at all, and one that we are on the winning side of.)
This analogy keeps being made but I am not convinced it is correct.
Any participant in a dynamic network can choose with whom to have relationships. That's the point of a firewall or cloudflare or a million other security efforts.... to prevent interactions which due to malice or accident would cause some harm to come to the local system. There is no obligation to participate and in fact with the fediverse it is specifically designed with defederation in mind.
The comparison has been made to email explaining the fediverse concept to new users. Most people know about email. But Usenet is much more apt, if you are familiar with that. Usenet had (has) similar concepts such as the way servers share, mirror and distribute content from others servers. There is a burden imposed on any given server according to the others it has communication with. If you never had the pleasure of being on Usenet, it was basically like email discussion lists where the inbox was public. But you still needed to have access to a server to read and post. Messages were sent in similar way to email but every server would retain a copy of messages prior to forwarding them on to a list of other servers. They would in this was percolate through the network. Every server had its own version of the history of usenet according to the choices of the admins and there was not central authority or main copy.
Usenet server admins exercised broad discretion deciding who they would have a relationship with and what they would accept. Nobody was every perfectly connected to everybody else for various reasons including: legality, morals, politics, technical, geography, taste and happenstance. Individual people, hosts that allowed too many bad users, problem communities, filetypes, topics of conversation.... all kinds of things were blocked by admins. Some news servers were permissive and some were restrictive. Servers that were excessively permissive became hubs of spam, and thereby risked losing their relationships with other servers because other admins got too annoyed having to deal with it. And servers that were excessively restrictive had a hard time keeping users because you couldn't really participate properly if unable to see a lot of groups and not seeing a lot of the traffic, plus your messages would not propagate for others to see. So it was a balancing act.
For the most part this is an analogy that isn't helpful for a lot of people.. But maybe on SDF there are some who can recall those days. I do not think the concept of blocking servers breaks the concept of the fediverse at all.
(I am still undecided on my opinion on the question but I think it is a legitimate possibility.)
A post reddit signup. Just a casual weekend sort of nerd. Not an engineer, developer, sysadmin, sysop or anything of the sort. But I do appreciate yousall.
I am sad about reddit.
a depressed guitar-playing sysadmin who identifies with marvin the martian... I was like "wait is this my dad?" Well he he retired now.
FWIW he has managed to get old (2x your age) and even though I had a somewhat strange childhood I wouldn't choose a different parent even if I could. A lot of people I know who had "normal" parents suffered a lot at their hands in ways that were not even conceivable to me. He didn't get any kind of therapy til more recently and it has vastly improved things for him and those around him.
I'm one of few in the world who know him and he is one of my favorite people.
I have had issues with a couple lemmy instances today. I think there is both a software upgrade and a massive influx of users going on.
it would be kind of like that except that
spez et al wouldn't be able to choose to keep a controlling number of shares. all the shares would be offloaded. he could have 1 share just like any other user.
laws that govern publicly traded businesses would not apply. it would be a coop or other model. details would depend on jurisdiction(s) but many do have separate legal structures for such entities. In the US, REI and in Canada, MEC are buyer coops which are fairly well known. There are also housing coops and other structures for inspo.
shares could only be owned by people who had a specific kind of interest in the project, such as being individual users, mods etc. furthermore, individuals would be limited in number of shares (e.g. 1 share each)
This is not a fully formed proposal. :) but in terms of thinking about how the world could be I think a worthwhile train of thought.
a person who was interested in this kind of thing could do a websearch for "the cooperative movement" for historical context. not to be overly rosy about it, the movement basically failed to accomplish its goals at the end of the day. however, it did make a lot of good interventions while it was existing. for example the famed (if crumbling) canadian health are system is a result of cooperative farmers' movement. furthermore, coops which continue to exist under capitalism experience a lot of tensions and can become corrupted.
also lookup: Mondragon in spain
/r/ATBGE was amazing. a place where you could see something unimaginable every day. it truly inspired me.
boycotts have always been very difficult to pull off and fail virtually every time.
For pros and cons a good place to start is Rules for Radicals, published in 1971 by the great community organizer Saul Alinsky. He has many stories to illustrate but in summary writes regarding boycotts:
Once the battle is joined and a tactic is employed, it is important that the conflict not be carried on over too long a time. ...There are many reasons of human experience arguing for this point. I cannot repeat too often that a conflict that drags on too long becomes a drag. The same universality applies for a tactic or for any other specific action.
Among the reasons is the simple fact that human beings can sustain an interest in a particular subject only over a limited period of time. The concentration, the emotional fervor, even the physical energy, a particular experience that is exciting, challenging, and inviting, can last just so long — this is true of the gamut of human behavior, from sex to conflict. After a period of time it becomes monotonous, repetitive, an emotional treadmill, and worse than anything else a bore. From the moment the tactician engages in conflict, his enemy is time.
BTW Alinsky (b.1909) wrote this book to try to stop baby boomers from being dumb and fouling everything up. I am not a huge fan of the intergenerational model of class conflict but I think it is interesting.
this would have been a good thing to do for some of the people who deleted their accounts. the ones who had accounts which could have credibly been given subs.
even though that sub is like the most annoying and sanctimonious place on reddit, I am sad for these people that they are losing their forum. where else will people express their anxiety over wasting lemon seeds by throwing them away? or congratulate each other on the ecological benefits of purchasing complicated, unfix-able gadgets to perform simple and infrequently performed tasks?
I wonder if he's willing to keep going hard and tank his own defense.
If he was, and his lawyers were willing and able, I still don't know what it would look like. Maybe maneuver some kind of disclosures that wouldn't otherwise be available. But that was suppose to be the case with Ghizlane Maxwell too and look how it turned out.
In terms of broad social effects, Shinzo Abe is the only example to look at that I'm aware of.