this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
2180 points (91.4% liked)
Technology
60084 readers
3149 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So news of an online store doing shady shit constitutes as "tech news" because they run a web site? Strictly speaking the wheel is also technology, so a post about the history of the wheel seems like a worthy post in a tech community? We might as well post anything here because almost everything you use in your daily life is either technology or related to technology. While I do understand the philosophical aspect of the answer it has no practical value when it comes to defining what kind of content should be posted here.
There needs to be a more practical understanding of what the community considers "tech" so that wrong kind of posts don't get spammed here. For me personally the internet has been around for most of my life. It's not some new a shiny thing, it's as common as the wheel. Therefor I don't consider just running a bog standard website "tech". Similarly I don't consider Twitter / X a tech company, they're a social media company that uses software as a tool. I haven't considered anything about Twitter, except firing the engineers, as tech news since Musk wanted to buy Twitter. Maybe even before Musk tried to buy it, but who remembers things from eons ago. If there was news about some kind of exploit on Twitter or a data breach, that I could consider tech news because that is generally related to the actual tech they are using for their business. But a Twitter rebrand? Has literally nothing to do with tech beyond the tools they used constituting as "tech". But then we're back to square one where I could post about a new bicycle coming out, because the wheels bicycles use are "tech" and the frame material being used is produced by "tech" and there's a lot of "tech" that goes into a bicycle. But somehow I doubt this is what the community cares about.
So writing "R MUTT 1917" on a urinal and putting it in an art gallery constitutes as "art" just because they said it is?
etc etc
According to you it definitely does, that was literally your argument for having anything remotely tech related as tech news.
My argument was that it needs to be actually related to tech/art to considered that. If we want to be super critical of art then just writing that at an urinal may or may not be art. For the sake of argument let's say it's not. But if someone takes a picture of it (or turns the entire thing into a composition) and puts it in an art gallery then it is art. It has to contextualized somehow as art to be in a gallery and that contextualization defines it as art. Similarly tech news should be in in the context of tech, which is why something like rebranding a company is not necessarily tech news.
yes, I was using the famous example that broke the Fin De Ciele -era snobbery about art and the distinction between artist and artisan to make a point.
my point is that you can't define it. So you say "should posts about the wheel be included?"
and the answer is if you exclude all things about wheels where do you draw the line? someone creates a new type of ball bearing that revolutionizes manufacturing, but thats not allowed because it's a wheel? Someone uses a new archeological discovery about an ancient device to invent a modern one? No posts about cars, trains etc? No posts about waterwheel generated activity?
It becomes impossible to police.
Like I said before, I understand the philosophical aspect of this argument. Strictly philosophically I even agree with it, but the argument has no practical value because it's essentially saying "moderation is pointless". In practice most people would still want moderation because some moderation (even if it's not 100% correct) is better than no moderation.