Tell that to Jadav Payeng, who planted a forest by himself. He accomplished, on his own, more for the good of the world than most communities on Facebook ever will.
Rural Facebook communities aren't trying to change the world. They're there for light conversation, gossip and organizing get-togethers.
It's important to note that Jadav didn't get other people to change and join his crusade before it happened. He merely went out and did what he wanted. People were inspired by seeing it happen.
People aren't going to be inspired by yet another social network touting federation and other technical mumbo-jumbo, because it doesn't help them do anything they weren't already doing on Facebook.
This whole conversation is very strange to me indeed.
> This whole conversation is very strange to me indeed.
Because you’re not engaging with the point?
For starters, the original claim was to “make the world a better place”, not “change” it. Beyond that, the point of my reply was to show that it is indeed possible to make the world better without communicating with anyone else (contrary to the original claim).
Change is change. You don’t get to define someone’s life work, which was more meaningful and impactful than most of us will ever achieve, not “real” to fit your narrow definition.
Yes, yes it is. By definition. “Limited” means “restricted in size”, not “an arbitrary number a random person thinks is small”. From the moment OP defined “this is for this specific community of this size”, it is limited. It will be abundantly clear when they have moved no one, or every one, or a critical mass, or not enough. Because it’s limited, bounded, constrained.
We’re not discussing the total population of the Earth. The thing about words is that their meaning may depend on context.
If we were discussing everyone who has lived and will ever live, the current population of the world would be a limited snapshot. Same if we were discussing every planet and civilisation in the fictional world of Start Trek.
But we’re not discussing that. Making up something we’re not talking about to attack what we are is called a straw man argument.
And for the purposes of the stated goal, for one person or even a company to get 50K people to switch from Facebook or to use another platform especially when all someone else has to do is start a group on Facebook, might as well be “the number of people on earth” difficult.
What you’re arguing against is not the point I was making. My point in this thread is way up there: it replies to someone saying you cannot make the world better without communicating with other humans, by presenting someone who on their own improved the world more than most (if not all) Facebook groups ever will.
When I used the word “limited”, it was clearly in reference to it being an “isolated” specific community and not everyone.
Words have meanings. Communication between humans, which you’re keenly defending, depends on a shared understanding of them. I haven’t commented on it until now, but in my view you’re splitting hairs by repeatedly creating your own definitions (e.g. defining what is “real” change or not; changing the definition of words you said; saying “improvement” is not “change”; misunderstanding “limited”). So your repeated accusations don’t really land.
I don’t think it’s worth either of our times to continue, though. We’ve strayed too much from the original point.
A good evening (or your equivalent time of day) to you.
He very literally did change the world. There wasn’t a forest there and now there is. In fact the conception of “the world” as an abstract global concept is much less impactful than what people see outside their window and in their city/community.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/jadav-payeng-the-...