This article was just one not pay walled piece I found right away - I figured I’d at least mention some kind of source. I’m sure there’s much more information on this to be found elsewhere.

It is also interesting to note that there is speculation among historians that Da Vinci may have deliberately included errors in the designs of his war machines, as he was probably more of a pacifist.

This is mentioned, for example, in this article on the design of the Da Vinci tank:

Some scholars argue that Leonardo, a known pacifist, may have deliberately included this flaw to prevent his design from being used for warfare. Others, however, believe it could have been an oversight.

Source

That would be great.

Sure. But what I’m getting at is that this way of consuming information likely leads to people being anything but well informed. Because of this social media “newswoth” logic, they mainly read content that isn’t very well thought out – if only because it was written under time pressure.

{Placeholder for a particularly witty comment next time}

Why shouldn’t you get a well-considered answer? I’m sure you’ll take another look at the thread. It does happen, but then you’re usually one of the few people who read these well-considered answers.

I’m not saying that there aren’t well-researched answers on social media, I’m just getting at the fact that there’s time pressure if you want your answer to reach a certain audience.

Yes, but there’s no guarantee that this topic will ever be discussed again. It’s a bit like when you think of a good comeback after a verbal exchange - you have the right argument, but it doesn’t matter anymore. Next time, you’ll be prepared, but next time may never come.

What I mean by this is that every topic is treated like breaking news on social media. However, news reports are characterized by the fact that they are usually outdated by the next day because they are only relevant for a limited period of time. This is not true for many topics discussed on social media. In fact, it is even possible to repeat something after a certain period of time (e.g., reposting memes), which is impossible with actual news reports.

That’s true, of course. But these responses are hardly visible to most people. Of course, the thread is still online years later, but since people today generally only use social media apps, they no longer see these responses, no matter how valuable they may be. If anything, they only perceive these delayed responses as part of the data sets of LLMs – but then mostly without reference to the original content.

I mean, the quality of content hardly matters if you’re late. If you waited just one day to respond to this post, no one would notice your comment.

There is a Canadian movie called “Beans”, but it’s a drama…

Based on true events, Tracey Deer’s debut feature chronicles the 78-day standoff between two Mohawk communities and government forces in 1990 Quebec.

And of course there’s the documentary about Lemmy Kilmister that is called - lo and behold: “Lemmy”

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will consider the matter further.

It is exactly as you say: Lemmy is, of course, excellent and absolutely worthy of support. I am just not entirely sure whether my contribution will actually end up in development. However, I will have to live with this uncertainty. I just find it problematic that .ml stands for pretty much the opposite of why I want to support Lemmy — namely, free discourse free from political influence by the platform itself. That’s simply not the case with .ml, because their moderators only allow their own narrow-minded views — and I fear that this approach is supported by the developers.

Nevertheless, the software itself remains worthy of support, you’re absolutely right about that.

Just finished that librapay subscription and reallocated the amount to another FOSS project.

You do realize that the developers of Lemmy (the software) have a very close relationship with lemmy.ml, right?

My question simply relates to whether I can support the software development without supporting lemmy.ml.

The developers of Lemmy (the software that runs this) are affiliated with lemmy.ml. I don’t like their attitude towards social media. That is why I asked if I can support Lemmy (the software) without contributing to Lemmy.ml.

I understand that, but the Lemmy developers are deeply rooted in .ml. I just wonder whether it makes sense to support that. I am aware that this is FOSS, but there is no transparency as to whether my support actually ends up in the software development or perhaps in .ml, which I do not want to support.

Thanks for the reminder, I think I’ll take a look around.

I didn’t realize that I was banned from .ml. Am I? Anyway, that’s not the point. My point is to support technology that allows free expression, especially since that’s not the case with mainstream platforms. And by free expression of opinion, I mean what is commonly understood by that term – not baseless insults, accusations, conspiracy theories, or anything else that lacks any factual basis. I mean the free expression of legitimate, debatable opinions. That should be the most natural thing in the world.

I just don’t want my opinion to be censored for political reasons. That’s what I had hoped for from Lemmy – not some propaganda bullshit. Do you really see this platform as a counterpart to Truth Social? If so, then I’m in the wrong place, because I’m interested in exchanging opinions and arguments, not in having my opinion confirmed.