Don’t bring logic here, this is reddit! Wait. Oh no. Seriously though, not all sites with pay walls are applying the pay wall to every article. Some charge for opinions and business gossip while leaving true news that affects everyone open
Don’t bring logic here, this is reddit! Wait. Oh no. Seriously though, not all sites with pay walls are applying the pay wall to every article. Some charge for opinions and business gossip while leaving true news that affects everyone open
Many friends of mine are like saying why would i care i’d rather see ads that are relevant than ones that arent. Like dude i dont want ads at all and i dont want my data to be used to influence my buying behavior.
I don’t care if I have to see unobtrusive ads (not overlays, not popups, not unskippable videos) ads help keep many web services free, sometimes I even find it helpful when ads are relevant to my recent searches or the page I am looking at. But having companies build up profiles about me and then share that between themselves is bullshit, that kind of behavior would be treated as stalking if done by an individual, why is it ok for a business?
While this is an understandable desire my question is as follow:
If you don’t want ads, and don’t want to pay for every service, how’s all the internet system supposed to be sustainable on the long run? How should things be financed?
Honestly that’s not our problem to solve. If we disagree with a business model we can choose not to use it, the onus isn’t on us to find another one for the business.
If your product isn’t worth paying for that’s a you problem and if your business goes under because it wasn’t sustainable that’s also a you problem.
Is pretty likely that the business offered nothing new or innovative at a price people would part with their money for and just because you want to start a competing business in a market means nothing.
Competition is great but no business is entitled to a piece of the market solely because they want to exist. There’s no point being a carbon copy of an existing service if you expect people to pay when your offering already exists somewhere else and if you want people to pay your business instead of another you need to improve something or create something of benefit for them to at a price point both sides can work with.
You’re absolutely right, but this is a different case I think: It’s freerider problem, people WANT to use internet services, want to use social and so on, the problem is, if possible, they don’t want to pay for it. In the scenario where we make ads completely illegal, companies will look for other ways to monetize the service, because a system which is not in break even on the long term is cursed to bankruptcy.
People want to watch Netflix, but without paying, that means that if everyone do like that, Netflix will find other ways of monetization. That’s why games became full of microtransanction and always online stuff, for example. That’s what made ads popular in the first place, don’t want to pay? No problem, here’s a free sites with ads. should socials be closed community where you can access only paying, like pay tv? Because even right now removing ads on Reddit or YouTube paying is possible.
Even Lemmy growth at a certain point will incur in this, because a platform can’t hold itself on 2 unpaid developers and free labor of volunteers who pay for server costs too.
Would we better off without these sites if we’re not willing to pay for them? Maybe yes. But what certain is that without financial stability a project can’t go far. The problem is both of the producer of the producer, sure, but also its users should wonder how much they want the platform, because it will evolve accordingly.
Why don’t businesses do away with free and go to a completely paid model?
Let’s continue on this path of thinking: Customers already pay using their data. So if you want to show ads you have to pay customers since you are scrapping their data?
If I take a GPLv3 shower, that means the water has to be open-source, the resevoir has to be open-source, the Earth’s water cycle has to be open-source.
People are 75% water give or take, so people have to be open source •~•, if people are open source then any plants fed by nutrients of corpses have to be open-source, the whole biosphere will end up being open-source.
Damn, how to open-source the entire planet in 1 easy step, take a libreshower people!
I’m getting more annoyed with this obsession the rest of lemmy has with Hexbear than I am with any of Hexbear’s antics.
At least they kept it visually interesting. All these brainless fucking meme complaints about people that aren’t even here anymore blend together and make me think I’m on reddit again.
I don’t know how you’re interpreting the original post, but it’s pretty obviously throwing shade at non-cishet communists. I’m aware that there’s a lot of gay and NB tankies, and you are too by the looks of it.
My comment was pointing out that this post will, in fact, anger the tankies. There’s plenty of them on other instances, too, keep in mind.
In the US, we use liberal to describe a person who is left of center on the political spectrum, who is not a socialist. And we use conservative or neo-liberal to describe someone right of center.
Is the goal to make fun of people left of center or to make fun of people right of center? I honestly cannot tell from the above conversation. This may simply be regional based confusion on my part.
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
I would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
Liberals call themselves a variety of things, ranging from “democratic socialists” to “social democrats” to even “socialists”
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
Look, I won’t argue with you on semantics. You’re free to disagree with the common definition of liberalism that socialists use. It’s really just a convenient term for people that are pro-capitalist. It’s not intended to be a nuanced term, and I doubt most reasonable socialists would directly equate Republican fascists with Democratic progressives, even if they see both as problematic.
I can’t claim to be an expert, and this is strictly in a USA context, but I’d explain it this way: “Liberal” is used to insult someone for having and promoting bad, insufficiently leftward political principles, instead of good ones. The good ones depend on what principles the person doing the insulting holds. The right side of the political spectrum also uses Liberal as an insult, so it can be confusing.
Elements of the far left consider Liberals hardly better than (and in practice indistinguishable from) political centrists, conservatives, or fascists, due to the perception that Liberals support policies that won’t disrupt systems that perpetuate injustice, and will carry water for other liberals even when they commit acts they would denounce their political opponents for doing.
The right uses Liberal as a catch-all term for leftists generally (whom they despise), but it has diminished a bit, being supplanted by “woke” “groomers” “antifa” and “BLM.”
Yeah, I’ve started seeing the far left use liberal to describe anyone to the right of them. And weirdly, people on the far left decry wokeness the same way a conservative would. It has been weird. =/
Center to center right. Liberals tend to see themselves as left of center though and the word has very little meaning overall. I was mostly just making a joke though.
I would use neo-liberal to describe many American politicians, including a majority of Democrats, as they tend to have views right of center. But I would use liberal to describe many of the people voting Democrat as their views reflect positions that are at least center left.
Yeah, basically she has in the past talked about how she admires leftists and I don’t think she isn’t one, but that she thinks leftist ideas come from envy of people who are more fortunate, and that leftist ideas are bad cuz they’re ant-consumer. Admittedly tho its been a long time since I remember her talking about politics and my memory isnt the best but those are things I think I remember… Try the ‘envy’ video
Yeah, I like have a soft spot for her because she helped show me that there was actually a left beyond voting for labour every now and again, and like she was the only trans rep young me really had, but like her politics are cringe af - abby-exasperation is way cooler imo
PT makes good videos, but she is closer to contra than can be coincidental. I mean, what are the odds of two trans women making leftist (at least at one point) political video essays in an overly theatrical style with old english letters as pen names.
Yeah they’re friends and they used to help each other with the video production, I’m just saying that Abbie has wayyyy better politics than contra does (and her videos are better to - also she’s a fellow trans person enduring the hellscape that is TERF island with me so that endears me to her)
This is just pitting trans people against each other for no reason. PT were less theatrical before they came out, but acting like a theater kid in your video editing choices isn’t exclusive to any one YouTuber.
I was just comparing them since they’re decently close friends, they’re in the same niche and go for basically the same audience, and do things in the same style, it seemed like a pretty natural comparison to me
I understand, your comparison was fine. The person responding to you makes it sound like PT is ripping off Contrapoints though. Comparing their ideas, their production value and choices is fine, they do exist in a similar space, but there’s nothing wrong with PT existing in a similar space. Straight white men are allowed to coexist with identical videos on YouTube. But someone in a marginalized group? Their channels are constantly pitted against each other.
Vaush/Xanderhal, Asmongold/Penguinz0 are all allowed to be successful even though they pretty much make the same videos and stream clips on the same topics. But for some reason creators from marginalized groups can’t have similar tastes and ideas.
contra’s godawful takes on NB people / gender in general + her tendency to triple down when criticized really soured me on her content. it took all the fun out of the theater for me.
Nothing to my knowledge, she has a few videos defending nonbinary identities and rejecting people insisting it’s one or the other. I have no idea where the takes in this comment section are even coming from
Going? I think the least lib she ever got was making two videos about capitalism being bad and then concluding it with this statement:
You know maybe we should do something in the meantime. Uhh so I dunno, I guess vote Labour, tweet radically, try to eat more vegetables, uhh… Try not to be manipulated into waging war against other downtrodden people, and can we please not hand more power to the absolute worst dingbats our society has on offer.
Regardless of if this is intentionally designed to be misleading, a stack of sliders is the wrong way to show portions of a whole. I wonder what a better way would be for the web? A single slider with multiple knobs? Or like a single stacked bar with draggable boundaries between sections? I bet you could accomplish that with multiple sliders and some CSS to make them look like a single thing
Just checked the website. Your interpretation (and nine) was incorrect.
The publishers and charities sliders and connected, so they split up a total between the two. The Humble slider is independent (or connected to a referral in a similar way).
There should be some kind of separation here. I’d go so far as to say there should be a text explanation.
The other issue is that they’re absolutely no indication that spiders can affect each other, when using a screen reader. There’s no feedback for a slider you’re not adjusting.
Now you’ve got me wondering whether a client-side change would work to unlink the sliders and set them all independently. Could just be sending one value (the Humble slider’s position with the other two determined by splitting the remaining percentage) but if all three values are submitted and pass whatever validation takes place on the server, this could be fixable. No argument that it’s a shitty design though.
You could check your browser’s dev tools network tab and inspect the request. There isn’t much “hacking” you can do here though. If you send a low enough total amount, you just won’t get the games. If you send a higher total amount, you’ll get charged for it. This interface comes before the checkout proper.
It would still be interesting to get some insight on how this works though.
All 3 are connected. If you have Humble at minimum and lower one of the other 2, the humble slider increases along with the one you didn't slide. Keeping humble at minimum while fine tuning the other 2 is really fiddly.
I set up a monthly donation to charity:water when IGN first added the sliders, before they lowered the humble minimum. It used to be 50%. So now a charity gets a bit more than I was donating through humble, and I spend roughly the same amount buying games elsewhere. I get a bit fewer games, but I play all the ones I buy. /shrug
Wage theft is the biggest form of theft by far. The biggest perpetrator of wage theft is, unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart. They have the audacity to call anyone else a thief?
I absolutely HATE Walmart. I should hate them for their exploitation of workers, their shit products or any number of their shit corporation’s dealings. But the thing that drew the final blow for me was an incident dealing with their self checkout and their system of ascribing guilt for theft without any due process.
I went to a store about half an hour away from where I lived as they aren’t common near where I’m from. Bought several items including a marker board. Checked out using self checkout. Marker board was too big to fit into a bag, so I set it aside to bring with me after scanning everything. Well, as luck would have it, when I got home I realized I never brought my marker board home but I had paid for it and had the receipt to prove it. I called the store and explained the situation to the manager at customer service who assured me I could come to the store and pickup the item, no troubles.
So I drove back up to the store hour round trip. I get there and the customer service line is about 15 people deep at this point. Only one person behind the counter. After about 30 min waiting in line, I finally get up to the counter and explain my issue, showing the receipt and that I had spoken to a manager earlier and that they said to come in and it would be fine to pickup the marker board. Well, not only was it not fine, but then the woman behind the counter, after having a discussion with her security dept over the phone who “reviewed the footage” from my checkout, decided that I had actually attempted to put something into my pocket to steal something!? Incredulously, I asked her why on earth I would go through the trouble to come all this way back to the store for an item that I clearly paid for along with about $60 worth of other stuff which again, also clearly paid for, if I had stolen something!? She refused to budge and I was honestly shocked she had the audacity to accuse me of theft 100% seriously. I left that store and haven’t set foot in a Walmart since. It’s been 4 years and it’s the best consumer decision I’ve ever made.
I lived with my partner and her parents for a couple of years. At some point her mom started getting more groceries from Walmart; around that time I started having badddd reactions to the food. She doesn’t get groceries from Walmart anymore.
Oh, absolutely. No hate to the customer service woman. I realize she was probably under pressure from the powers that be, but nevertheless, she enforced the absurd policy (understandably, girl’s gotta eat), didn’t make the experience any more palatable for me, however.
midwest.social
Top