StellarExtract

I'm guessing I'm probably slightly younger than you, but I'm still old enough to remember how things were before the web took everything over. I definitely agree with some of your point, but I think there's some cause for optimism!

• finally democratize information - Information really is more democratized than any other prior time in human history. There is a bunch of bad information mixed in as well, but that doesn't negate the benefits that the internet has brought in this regard. If I have the time and the motivation I can give myself a college level education just using free resources on the internet.
• do away with misinformation and pseudoscience - this is definitely a problem on the internet, but I think if we didn't have the internet it would still be a problem. We have whole news networks that were founded specifically to pump out misinformation. That just happened to start around the advent of the internet but was not caused by it.
• promote critical thinking - yeah, I don't think the internet has helped much on this front, but again I don't think it has actually made it much worse. People are overall much more educated today than they were decades ago. Their ignorance is just also much more visible.
• freedom and democracy - the internet has enabled a new rise of fascism which is horrifying, but it has also enabled unprecedented coordination and strength in minority communities on a global scale. I think we would be much farther behind socially if the internet hadn't appeared.

Damn, I didn't know what had happened to her. I really liked her content.

I use Trello to manage several lists (recurring daily, Tuesdays only, one-offs, etc) and reconcile them into a daily plan each morning

Assuming it ever comes out. I'm WAITING...

I see, thanks. That's something I'll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it's really a prerequisite for a functioning society. I appreciate you going over all of that!

So the specifics of how a community would allocate resources without there being a state is considered more of an open question, then?

Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it's a representative democracy, there's huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn't this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn't make much sense to me.

Thanks, I guess it's the "get whatever they want" part that doesn't make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can't have it?

This is an aspect I'm genuinely curious about (as someone who is relatively uneducated on this subject) because my answer would be that yes, there will definitely be people who want to regress. There have always been individuals who are willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to obtain more material wealth or power. They're a minority, but their existence has to be assumed and accounted for. For all of capitalism's failings, one of its strengths is that it does give these people a path to follow that produces (some) benefit to society. How does a fully-implemented communist society deal with these individuals without them subverting and corrupting the system?

me (mostly)

I wish to be the clown

A