I’m not associated with anyone in this thread or the situation being discussed. I’m interested how we understand and use cultural signals. Here’s some Pepe detail for the similarly curious:

The alt-right got wise to new media in the 2010s. They started meme-washing their hate mongering and trying to normalize coded hate speech in internet culture using Pepe memes and other popular formats. It snowballed and the Pepe meme = Nazi user association is a product of lasting trends from that time. It’s similar to clocking someone for wearing straight-laced Doc Martens or khakis and a white polo.

For those in the know one of those items is a small red flag. The wearer could be completely ignorant that these are known dog whistles/identifiers for members of hate groups. If someone is wearing a lot of small red flags then it’s less likely the wearer is accidentally serving white supremacist. That’s the point of stealing and manufacturing these kinds of symbols though: most people don’t know they exist or what they intend to mean so the user can feign ignorance with plausible deniability. They’re the inverse of modern progressive advocacy symbols. Wearers can hide in plain sight with just enough Nazi showing that other insiders see them. Pride icons for cowards.

The artist who created Pepe has publicly denounced the character’s use as a hate symbol and regressivist propaganda tool. Whether or not a community or individual “liberates” Pepe from the prison CHUDs built is up to them.

For what it’s worth: I lean toward liberate most of the time (fight against the thieving bigots) but in this situation, even given a permissive setting, adding “posts Pepe” as a mark against is sensible. It’s clear the user is either intentionally pushing hate propaganda or else under enough alt-right influence that their intentions aren’t relevant to the evaluation.

laughs in home lab

Not that I’d buy it but, if I did, that power button might get used twice a year. Likely less since I wouldn’t be able to upgrade or maintenance its hardware.

That’s a problem. Absolutely. It’s not the problem though. I’m not sure the problem can be summarized so succinctly. This is the way I’ve been putting it:

These are the top reasons humanity needs successful, decentralized, open social media platforms:

1. Collecting and selling user’s private data is dangerous and unethical.
2. Using that data to intentionally and directly manipulate user’s thinking is even worse.
3. All of the major centralized social media companies have been proven to either allow these illicit information campaigns or coordinate them directly. TikTok is the focus right now but Sophie Zhang exposed Facebook for doing exactly what TikTok has been exposed for recently. Can you recall any meaningful consequences for Facebook? Do you think Facebook is now safe to use?
4. It’s clear that most political leaders are either too ignorant, too corrupt, or too inept to meaningfully legislate against these problems.
5. The concerned public can’t shut Pandora’s box. No one is coming to save us from big tech or the monied interests and nation-states that wield it.
6. The concerned public can’t easily and legally audit the platforms big tech builds because they are closed and proprietary.
7. Personal choice is not enough. Not using centralized social media increases personal safety but does little to curb its influence otherwise.

These are listed by order of intuitive acceptance rather than importance. I find it aids the conversation.

The best reasonable answer to these problems I’ve seen proposed is for the public to create an open and decentralized alternative that’s easier to use and provides a better user experience.

Will that kind of alternative be a force for pure good? I’m not sure. To your point: I’m not convinced social media of any kind can be more than self-medication to cope with modernity. Then again I’ve had incredible and meaningful conversations with close friends after passing the bong around and spent time on Facebook/Reddit, and now Mastodon/Lemmy/etc, doing the same. Those interactions were uplifting and humanizing in ways that unified and encouraged all involved.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We need to take care of each other, refuse pure hedonism, and protect the vulnerable (and we’re all varying degrees of vulnerable). At the same time: humans aren’t happy in sterile viceless productivity prisons. Creating spaces for leisure which do no harm in the course of their use isn’t just a nice idea… It’s necessary for a functional and happy society.