[lazide]

If there are enough individuals that the group forms anyway, and being a member of the group is profitable, then any single individual who decides not to join just suffers the loss of that profit.

Only if enough individuals decide together to not do it - enough to not allow the group to form - does it change the math. But unless there is a clear group of folks doing that, communicating that, and co-ordinating with that goal - no individual has any way of determining if they would ‘tip the scales’ or not. So it’s very unlikely to happen ‘naturally’ once a certain degree of momentum has happened.

A type of social prisoners delimma perhaps?

And if you’re noticing this also applied to the Nazi party, you’re not wrong.

Also applies to any other group though.

[deebosong]

I hear what you're saying.

Sounds like in either case, someone has to take a stance, and hold the line. And such folks might not have individual profitability that involves going along with the group as the highest order.

Shout out to Godwin's law, though hahha.

[lazide]

Hah, thanks for noticing.

The challenge I think is that for any individual the power/information dynamic is vastly against them.

Taken to an extreme, one just ends up poor and ostracized (best case!) and made no difference at all.

Any individual in Russia trying to stop the machine that attacked Ukraine would have accomplished nothing but their own destruction. If all the folks against it had taken action, it would have been stopped.

Which is why coordination to do that was, has been, and will continue to be, illegal and targeted by extensive gov’t security apparatus’s.

Not to say Meta is the Russian gov’t, but rather that for any potential employee, their incentive is always to get paid the most and go with the flow, and hope nothing too bad happens.

Taking idealogical stances can be high risk, low reward.

[an_aparallel]

nicely worded. I agree with this as well...its just sad.