cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43439862

Modern oligarchs like Musk, Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg are exactly like medieval lords. The top 1% controls all resources, and it is almost impossible to buy an apartment today. We own nothing and just pay rent or subscribe to their platforms. These billionaires have total power to fire thousands of workers anytime and buy politicians for their own interest. They say they work for humanity, but it is just fake marketing. For example, they are silent on wars in Palestine and Ukraine. Majority of ordinary people and developers are too naive. They believe these lies and fail to see the real system

  • linule@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    I‘ve never liked the analogy to feudalism, because it leaves out the elephant in the room that people can open accounts on alternative platforms very easily and comfortably in about 2 minutes. It seems more productive to discuss why they don’t do it. Acting like the possibility doesn’t even exist is a part of the problem and reinforces it.

    • thefluffiest@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 days ago

      That doesn’t invalidate the use of the term feudalism. Under OG feudalism there were plenty exceptions to the rule. But that doesn’t discount the fact that most people had no real choice, or chose to remain where they were for usually social reasons. Even if they could have technically and physically made the jump.

      Just like today. Technically it’s easy to dump Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp and whatever. In practice, it means saying goodbye to a social network (in the real sense) and not everybody can or wants to go there.

      • linule@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        Feudalism involved swearing loyalty to a lord, usually for life. And it seems that you could not have multiple lords. Our situation is one of complete freedom, where you can leave the platforms anytime, as well as use multiple in parallel and distribute your time using them however you want. So if e.g you feel bound to the popular platforms because of followers, you can use the smaller platforms in parallel, allowing them to grow, so nothing changes other than involving a little more effort. As more people do this, the network effect equalizes. So it’s easy to do, and it solves the problem, yet it doesn’t even cross the minds of most, including of these „thinkers“. Why is that? It seems that everyone operates on the assumption that the masses don’t have free will, or are very stupid, at least.

        • Brummbaer@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          You totally could have multiple Lords, that was nothing out of the ordinary.

          Feudalism was a not some kind of top down system, it was a net woven out of relationships people negotiated all the time.

          For example Enguerrand VII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enguerrand_VII_de_Coucy

          He was a vassal to the French and the English king at the same time, so the fun really begins when both are at war with another.

          • linule@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            If feudalism is a cool network where everyone can freely choose at any time who they want to partner with, what are the „technofeudalism“ authors worried about?

            • Brummbaer@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I just pointed out that it was more complicated than King + Church at the top and everyone else down the line. I wanted to be neutral here.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The oligarchy allows social media, regardless which one, because it provides an empty outlet which releases pressure

    • Labor Class@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Why people dont do it ? why people dont use opensource and decentralize alternatives? I think people are weak , and money can easily money people. We are too weak to resist against oligarchs. you and me may be strong but majority are not. People cant resist not use instagram,whatshapp

      • morto@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I wouldn’t say weak, but lazy. People are literally willing to give power o oligarchs in exchange of a minor convenience. Also, most people don’t even think about such things and just go with the flow. They use what “everyone else is using”.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        People don’t use free & open source alternatives because their advertising is shit, and most people have never heard of the alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, and Spotify.

      • linule@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        What kind of weakness prevents you from clicking through a register flow in 2 minutes and swiping between apps? The problem is apathy. Which is fixable, but articles like these that act like people are just stuck there and there’s nothing that can be possibly done, effectively prevent anything in that direction from happening.