The term was used correctly. The idea is to use Threads as a way to capture people who wanted to onboard to Mastodon and those who wanted an alternate to Twitter.

Over time, Threads could demand that Meta’s app be used to access Threads, allowing Meta to control the algorithm. It could also start strategically defederating from other instances over time.

After a while, Meta would likely only allow government and major companies’ official accounts to federate with it. Meanwhile, Meta would control the customer base.

In the real world, your life depends on being accepted into that group or migrating to another place while having huge losses and problems due to it later on.

Just because the punishment isn’t as strong doesn’t mean that the system functions differently. You are also going to run into issues where established communities may have issues moving.

I’m not sure i agree because an admin can also be protested against and they can share ownership

But that isn’t baked into Lemmy. That is a decision you made outside of Lemmy. Even then, is there a case where your instance could run without you? If not, you are still acting as an enlightened dictator.

The problem for Hasbro is that, right now, the company doesn’t have that much in non WotC moneymakers and hasn’t had it for years. There have been attempts by activist investors to push for having WotC demerged from Hasbro so WotC isn’t subsidizing the rest of Hasbro. The across-the-board cuts were Hasbro leadership trying to placate investors, but they cut muscle and bone from WotC for some reason instead.

Part of the reason why I’m arguing against economic terms is because it doesn’t really give context into the power dynamics in how an instance is run. At the core of most instances on Lemmy, a head admin dictates the rules of their instance and it is take it or leave it for everyone else that wants to participate.

Think of it like this, if the head admin wanted to make a decision against all other admins and mods, what would happen? Likely, which has happened previously to other instances on Lemmy, the head admin wins out and everyone else either conforms or has to leave. Labor doesn’t become ownership.

Unless an instance has a corporate structure which distributes power, it is an autocracy by definition.

C:S had a lot of similarities to the Sim City that was released as its contemporary.

The USA absolutely uses military prowess to project power. It just happens to be that marching soldiers no longer does that anymore; that’s what Air Force flybys at college football games are for.

Trump’s parade was sponsored by Coinbase.

Given that Fortunate Son was playing as one of the songs…

And we’ll use the remains of your planet to build a giant planet killing machine.

You can see design evolution. It wouldn’t be too hard to describe C:S as Sim City 5.

And Cities: Skylines succeeded because EA shit the bed with SimCity.

Some instances let others work as mods, or even with some admin privileges. However, at the end of the day, each instance is beholden to the head admin unless they were set up differently. The only instance I can think of with an organizational structure beyond autocracy is beehaw.

You’re also trying to insert economic descriptions to a political system without economics.

Autocratic city-states.

No.

From what I’ve seen, especially since COVID, is that society has changed beyond their understanding and now a lot of things are strange and scary. Worse, a lot of the skills they should have learned to understand the present day weren’t learned for various reasons, so getting over the hump of understanding is now a lot higher than previous.

Anger is a common reaction to fear and confusion.

A lot of people forget the shear bloodlust in the USA after 9/11 that lasted for years.

When people compare the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, a lot of people forget there was a large chunk of the country who were rabidly pro Iraq War while there wasn’t an equivalent base for the Vietnam War.

There is astroturfing, but there is also a lot of propaganda and story curation around the protests.

And DC was barricading the shit out of the parade route the day before, almost expecting a riot to occur.

Two reasons:

First, both Koreas accept that there are two different countries through various political actions. That equivalent doesn’t exist for the Chinas; both nations officially don’t recognize each other’s legitimacy and don’t treat each other as independent nations.

Second, the UN Veto only goes to one country. The USA kept the PRC from being declared the legitimate Chinese government. So, the world is used to viewing the issue of one China, it continues to do so.

Yes