[AnthonyMouse]

But this is precisely the problem. If you want the right thing to happen, you can't allow the wrong thing to be more convenient. "The wrong thing is more convenient so STFU" is the flawed worldview, because it's what causes the wrong thing to continue happening.

Now consider what happens if people do the opposite. Instead of defending convenience as an end unto itself as Moloch would have it, you create friction against bad choices. Complain about them, refuse to assist your allies in making a mistake. Do things that make bad options less convenient and redirect people to better choices.

People will still do what's convenient, but now the more convenient thing is the better thing.

[rrr_oh_man]

> Now consider what happens if people do the opposite. Instead of defending convenience as an end unto itself as Moloch would have it, you create friction against bad choices. Complain about them, refuse to assist your allies in making a mistake. Do things that make bad options less convenient and redirect people to better choices.

What about making "the right option" better instead of making the "the wrong option" worse?

[AnthonyMouse]

These things are related. If people don't use the right option then it's starved of resources with which to improve.

Of course, you can also improve the right option independently of that, e.g. by making contributions. But now we're back to "Apple interferes with this by making it harder to tinker."

[4death4]

The flaw in your logic is that you’re taking too myopic a view. In your world “making something worse” is somehow divorced from the tyranny of convenience, but in reality it’s not. Changing society is itself inconvenient, and therefore unlikely to happen unless leaving society as-is is less convenient.

[AnthonyMouse]

But now you're just defining "convenient" as "worthwhile" which is hardly the same thing.