Did a literal child write this?

Sounds like cope.

As someone who has been medicated for years now, just try it. For most people it’s not habit forming. Also getting diagnosed doesn’t mean you get medicated. It does help you understand why you are the way you are. Medication doesn’t undo the lifetime of trauma you’ve endured and all the bad habits that stem from that. There is a lot of shame attached to ADHD that is external to the condition. You solve that shame and anxiety through therapy. The medication makes it less emotionally taxing to change tasks. It also helps suppress rejection sensitive.

It doesn’t change you. You won’t be less creative. It won’t even stop you from hyper focusing. It will let you stop hyper focusing though. Having better priorities is still on you, but it’s easier to stick to them with meds and therapy.

Its a work of fiction. We made it up. Its false. This one is a lie. Its a total fabrication. Not this time. No way.

I feel like there has to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the social relations of feudalism to come to the idea that we have looped back around from capitalism to a “techno-feudalism” model. That relation being, Serfs living on land owned by their Lord and performing “rent in kind” in exchange for subsistence plots and housing. The product produced by the “subsistence plots” was taxed, and a large portion was given to the Lord of the Manor. The “rent in kind” took the form of Labor, which was performed on the farmlands of the Manor House. For most of Feudalism’s run, there wasn’t a monetary exchange happening between Serfs and Lords until the merchant heavy townships petitioned the monarchy for Town Charters that gave them independence outside the Feudal system in exchange for paying taxes to the monarchy.

You would have to really twist and reframe these relations to try and place “tech” inside “feudalism” since, last I checked, we do not “subsist” off the digital “land” provided to us “freely” in exchange for any form of “rent in kind”. Do I think there is a portion of people who do subsist in this way? Sure. Most of those people, however, are doing some form of drop-shipping operation if they’re not some top 1000 social media presence. Even still, those media influencers do not make the majority of their money from the platforms they participate in, many if not all of them have to seek out external forms of monetization either through direct corporate sponsorships or their own capitalist business ventures.

More importantly, though, for us to have transitioned into a “techno-feudalist” organization of the economy, the state would have to be so far diminished that the only governing and enforcement agent with power in our daily lives would be the techno-feudalist lord. Last I checked, the state currently still exists, it still has a monopoly on violence, and these supposed techno-lords have not successfully built their own townships where they control everything within its borders. Even if they did, we have a more recent historical analogy for this in the Company Town.

Global Capital in my measurement hasn’t actually developed despite what people think. In order for there to truly be a Global Capitalist force, it would need to be elevated above state influence. However, this has clearly not happened, evident by the simple fact that all transactions that happen in the global market happen with national currencies, where their origin states have near total control over its value. What a Global Capitalist movement would want is high stability and decentralization of the currency all of their global transactions are based on, but that hasn’t manifested yet.

I say yet because I think there is clear evidence that this movement is taking place, and that there is an effort to decentralize economic transactions globally. The aim of “stability” is a futile one, since, even with a decentralized foundational currency, you are still subject to capitalism’s core contradictions. Regardless, you do not have to look hard to find the movement in question, that movement is cryptocurrency. From the Bitcoin white paper (Bitcoin.org, 2008), the first two sentences of the introduction read:

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust-based model.

We can see the framing here already. The issue with “commerce” is that you must place your “trust” in “financial institutions”. This system, according to Satoshi, “suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust-based model.” The “financial institutions” in question here, are state endorsed institutions, which the state “regulates” (I use this term loosely) and thus has direct control over. Naturally, in a capitalist state, this “regulation” happens in favor of the capitalist. Long term though, states are fickle things, one year you’re a feudal monarchy, the next year you’re a peoples’ republic. Who knows what the future can bring. You could see your capitalist venture go up in smoke as weeks turn into decades, leaving your legacy in ashes and your head in a basket. This is what sits at the heart of the “weakness” of the “trust-based model”, you have to place your “trust” in the state.

So what makes the cryptocurrency market the solution to this trust problem? Well, you can find that answer in the abstract of bitcoins white paper:

As long as a majority of [computational] power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they’ll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

Here the framing is lay bare once again. “As long as a majority of [computational] power is controlled by nodes that are not… attack[ing] the network” then “control” of the network is maintained by those with “a majority of [computational] power”. The way you gain “a majority of… power” is through expending more capital than the “attackers”, in the form of server farms. Some nation states have attempted to curtail the influence of crypto in their economic affairs, from China’s numerous regulatory crackdowns on both transactions and mining operations (Coindesk, 2021), to the SEC’s own flimsy attempts at regulation (Investopedia, 2024). Others seek to legitimize them as assets or currencies, such as Japan and Australia recognizing them as “legal property”, Brazil passing a law legalizing cryptocurrencies as payment methods, to wild extremes such as the failed experiment of Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador (The Tico Times, 2025), or Argentina’s Bitcoin Rental Agreements (DailyCoin, 2024). In our most recent timeline, states across the US are looking to create “Bitcoin Reserves” (CNN, 2025):

Missouri, South Dakota, Kansas, Indiana, and Montana have become the latest states to push for Bitcoin adoption, each introducing legislation to establish a Bitcoin reserve.

With these additions, 19 states have now proposed measures to either create a strategic Bitcoin reserve or allocate a portion of state funds toward BTC investments.

This embrace of the state and Bitcoin is not unlike the embrace of the US Dollar and the state. First, Bitcoin needs to be legitimized in the eyes of the state, then the national currency needs to be delegitimized in the eyes of its citizens. We have seen, in places like Argentina, that when there is widespread instability in domestic currency, Bitcoin sees a surge in adoption (Forbes, 2023). In the Forbes, 2023 article, and the Tico Times, 2025 article above, you’ll notice an interesting theme, which is, opposition to crypto from the IMF in the form of policy requirements. The IMF, who’s loans are issued in the form of USD, and expected to be paid back in USD, has “take[n] a strong stance against crypto” and tied their loan deal with Argentina to “creating new regulations… around the cryptocurrency industry”. In the case of El Salvador, their failed experiment with Bitcoin as legal tender comes in the wake of accepting an IMF loan which required the state to delegitimize Bitcoin as a condition of the loan.

We know that the IMF has a history of making their loans conditional pending implementation of austerity measures to liberalize and privatize the state’s economy. We know that their goal in this regard is to allow foreign (USD backed) investment to dominate and extract surplus value from the state’s citizens. However, this delegitimizing of Bitcoin, to me, illustrates the “threat” crypto plays in the world’s geopolitical economy. Crypto poses a similar threat to “dollar hegemony”, in the same way BRICS is a threat to “dollar hegemony”. It isn’t simply a defense of “dollar hegemony” it is also a defense of the statist organization of the world’s economic relations. It is a clear example of the materiality of states, and their role in the global market economy.

It is no wonder then that Argentina’s new president, Javier Milei, a self-identified anarcho-capitalist, has embraced crypto assets under his administration (ID Times, 2025). With inflation skyrocketing to nearly 300%, the citizens of Argentina have turned to cryptocurrencies to hedge their bets against the domestic currencies’ depreciation.

Anarcho-capitalists would want nothing more than to institute bitcoin or some other form of crypto asset as the backbone of a truly globalized capitalist movement. This could usher us into a kind of “techno-feudalism” environment, where the “withering state” is aided by destabilizing events that drive up the legitimacy of these crypto solutions in the eyes of everyday citizens. What would remain, is the means of producing a decentralized monopoly on violence. The way I see it, the old world monetary system is slowly engaging in combat with this decentralized monetary force.

As long as a majority of … power is controlled by [those] that are [collaborating] to attack the [old means of exchange], they’ll generate [hegemony] and outpace [its] defenders.

Score is relative though. On hexbear we have downvotes disabled. This means we can not down vote but also means down votes do not federate.

Studies have shown that down votes actually have a large psychological impact negatively on the user. Down votes are frankly unproductive. They might also encourage bad behavior, because if your goal is to stir the pot then down votes are a great indicator that it’s working.

On hexbear we operate on a fork of Lemmy. One of the changes is to the active algorithm, which makes posts decay faster then core Lemmy. Since the change things move pretty smoothly on the front page.

An automated system of banning is something primed for abuse. We see this already on other platforms that has trigger mechanisms for banning a user pending review. Its a shoot first ask questions later approach that could be weaponized against people.

Echo chamber is a very loaded term. A safe community is a protected community. To someone intruding on a space that values the community it has built, it might look like bad faith action. However, often the inverse is true, and the intruder is the one acting in bad faith. That could mean they willingly or ignorantly disregard the rules of a space, or are unwilling to listen and understand the perspective of a given space, and simply want to argue.

The value in Lemmy is that you can build and curate the kind of site culture and ultimately network culture you desire. If you do not like that culture, you can anyways find another place to hang out.

As it stands, you can implement your ideas using a bot. One thing definitely lacking on Lemmy is a kind of Auto moderator. It should be remembered though that auto moderator was a community built tool until Reddit assimilated it into the site as a core feature.

Laws going unenforced, in America? Never…

For the computer, maybe, but that’s the risks you accept. I’m sure this person understands the risk.

I saved this comment from Reddit:

According to this article (CW: Graphic descriptions of dead bodies) The Tiananmen Square massacre: the one sided story - Pearls and Irritations, google started censoring images of protesters violently killing PLA soldiers the day before the Tiananmen square massacre sometime in the 2010s because those images doesn’t fit the US narrative. So some info isn’t very easy to find. The author of the article was able to save and archive some of the ⚠️ images of protestor violence and mutilated PLA soldiers (WARNING: NSFL - Mutilated Bodies | WARNING: GOOGLE DRIVE LINK) ⚠️. There used to be more pictures of dead soldiers but I have absolutely no idea where to find them if google and western search engines are censoring them.

You can try to google any combination of mutilated/dead/lynched chinese/PLA soldiers Tiananmen square and nothing will come up. Also I found a US state department document that officials confirmed that the first wave of soldiers the day before the massacre was unarmed and were on orders to not use force to try to disperse the protestors and that the protestors were the ones violent. From my research the violence and fighting only started a day afterwards when the students started killing PLA soldiers.

These images are graphic and disturbing. Some of them are the ones you posted without the watermark. They align with the reports in his article. Some of them are from long defunct gore sites like ogrish[dot]com. I don’t know if an archive of ogrish exists anywhere. These images are so shocking it is no wonder the PLA responded the way they did. Honestly, these images shouldn’t be living in some random persons google drive. They could get removed at any time. Especially if we end up sharing them to frequently. I wonder of they could be preserved at archive.org.

Lol good luck.

I’ve been thinking about this recently too… I wonder how reliable it is to rip music right from Spotifiy.

I don’t want to get into details as to not dox myself. But I’m having this happen right now.

Ultimately, the conservatives in the chat were either wreckers (deliberately disrupted the chat if any left issue was on topic) or were pedantic debate lords about everything, especially trans issues. Also, every one of them is a rabid anticommunist. I have tried over the years to explain my perspective, to offer information, to be patient, and now I’m more educated but I’ve run out of patients.

The libs in the room (one of them being queer) Came to their defence after I lampooned them recently after almost a year of no contact. I stopped being a wimp about it, and I called a spade a spade this time around. I guess the two transphobes in the chat room didn’t appreciate it because they both left at some point. Not the first time. I was told to be civil, which is fucked in the context. At the height of the anti-trans stuff several years ago in Texas, we had a huge debate back and forth and one of the conservatives told me in no uncertain terms that DCF should be used against parents with trans kids. Apparently, I’m the one who’s supposed to be civil, though.

Everyone’s situation is different I guess. I have a good relationship with work friends who are more progressive. I have some promising parent friends who live in town. But that’s only recent.

I was told to “not be a stranger” by someone who never reaches out to me directly, after the smoke cleared. Its a two way street.

You don’t have the R1 button on. You need to turn that on to use the new model.

I stand corrected.

Bro please just bring the workers to a new party, I fucking beg you.

Oh now people care about Operation Northwoods?

Kind of a disappointing read when 2 out of the 3 are not actually services you can use yet.

It’s a huge sell off. We’re talking not just Tech utilizing AI. We’re talking about Power Companies, both Green and Nuclear, Cooling System providers, Data center construction companies. If it had its hands in AI somewhere, its tanking today.

Lol, don’t be a racist.

Could you provide some reading material for those off us who want to have a better understanding of their political process?