• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle




  • I’m utterly befuddled by this woman; somehow she hates the idea of trans women so much that she’s now closely allied with Posie Parker, a woman who hates women, hates suffrage, has advocated for the removal of women’s rights for years, and shares closely held opinions from just right of Goebbels.

    Somehow Jo has become so utterly single-minded, she’s paired with the antithesis of all the other things she believes in (and still claims to believe as justification of her anti-trans nonsense).









  • Jaccident@lemm.eetoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s a great analogy and helps me understand your argument much better. There is something I think you’ve missed though, which is that advertisers pay to be in the publication, and they pay at the point the print occurs. Rendering in your browser is the analog to hitting the print button, not putting it on a server to be pulled down. In your analogy, the advertiser has paid already before you consume the magazine; but for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine. If you want to write a browser that still calls the ads api and plays the video in the background so YouTube gets the ad revenue but you have “cut it out” then I don’t imagine google would care half as much.


  • Jaccident@lemm.eetoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I am sorry but that argument simply doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me. Unless I am missing a facet, you are saying that your autonomy outstrips their rights? If we were to make an analogue version of that argument would your autonomy to use your hands how you see fit, allow for you to walk into a shop and take something without paying? It seems like, unless I’ve missed something, that’s the analogy.

    Commerce and indeed society has always been a balance of personal autonomy and rules, with YouTube you’re going to a website and circumventing their chosen rules. I might not agree with YouTube’s methods, but I don’t think I can get behind the argument they are impinging on your technical rights any more than Tesco does if you try to half-inch a chocolate bar.






  • Jaccident@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlWhy must we be done this way?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can quit work and starve. You can quit school and get in a little bit of trouble. I don’t really see the equivalence here.

    Children have lots of rights in this analogy, in fact in a great many places, they also have a right to be cared for by the state that adults don’t. Statutory service provision routinely is written in protection of children.

    Weirdly, most people don’t have a right to take out and use their phone when working, and given that’s the thread topic it’s a decent sized hole in your argument. I worked a high-wage and technical role, white collar as it gets, and you know where my phone was when I was meant to be concentrating on my work, in my pocket. Know what would happen if I was fucking about on it when I had something important to do? Disciplinary, HR, threatened loss of livelihood. If you’re arguing you’re not being treated like adults, I have bad news for you.

    Look, you’re not some oppressed underclass of unperson and your myopic determination to cast yourself as such is a genuine insult to people living under actual hardship.