TheDankHold

He’d be proud considering his family’s implied participation in the business plot, an attempt to overthrow the government by corpos in the 30s.

Same callous disregard for life.

What even is the first part of this? Where were people? They were using the service while it hemorrhaged money. Now they’ve moved past that to increasing revenue. That period was never going to last. Where’s the hypocrisy? What’s the uniform position these people have according to you?

It’s also rich how you assume everyone has enough to make meaningful contributions to every creator they watch on their own.

I would go a different direction and say that if, beyond the excessive amount, you just can’t stand that ads exist on the platform then you are entitled and think free content is your right.

Why should they be free though? Outside a capitalist economy sure, but the way things are people need to make money. Premium gives a much larger cut to the channels you watch than regular ad watching anyway.

The first 5 came from Jerry

Renting is a concept that exists, just in case you were unaware.

The point is your generalization is disingenuously dismissive and insultingly reductive

Look up the Beecher report (hopefully I got the name right) to find out what happened to your trains. It was politicians getting bought by car manufacturers.

You accuse others of childish banality yet the only condescending jackass in this discussion is you as you lob insults and talk down to people.

News flash, walkable cities and public transit are better for disabled people than cars. Have a person in a wheel chair try to drive a car. Lets a blind person peel out on a motorcycle why don’t you you dipshit? Know how easy it is for a paraplegic to use a subway? They take a ramp or elevator down then roll on and off the cars as they please. Know how a blind person can get around without needing a friend with a car? They can make their way to a bus station where they can be taken across town.

Oh and finally, a “car ban”? Who mentioned flatly banning cars you disingenuous idiot? We want to design infrastructure for more than just cars, not ban them.

One way to come across as childishly banal and negative is to rant at someone for how bad of a person they are because of your own idiotic assumptions about their position.

You’re an insanely unserious person so log off and look into what people are actually advocating for instead of swallowing gallons of bullshit from people that know better. It’s unbecoming of someone with your smug sense of superiority.

You know the issues you’re bringing up aren’t caused by public transit, right? You’re so emotional over this and tear down the idea of public transit instead of giving a shit about mental healthcare in your country.

So now neither issue is solved, interesting perspective. You ever consider that traffic might be better for people like you who are deathly afraid of interacting with others if more people use public transportation?

Because no one’s talked about forcing you on a bus or flatly banning the existence of cars. You’re latching onto a hyper exaggerated scenario so you can act hysterical while feeling justified. You aren’t, you just have a small mind that’s easily manipulated into being against your own best interests.

As it stands now everyone needs to invest thousands of dollars to acquire and maintain something that is essentially required to participate in modern society. If you like doing that then more power to you, but everyone else just wants to have a choice.

They’ve been in the wrong for over 20 years. Celebrating getting back pats for stating the obvious isn’t that useful. Another area where context vastly improves the quality of a discussion.

I never said it was the only thing so I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.

Cutting context does allow one to make easy value judgements and frame them to support their preexisting position, that’s true.

It’s a different level, yet part of the same story. And the only way this is actually a different level is by only looking at Israeli casualties (another way restricting context can twist one’s understanding). Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military at a much higher rate for decades.

18 Palestinian journalists have been killed since 2001, all wearing identifying press gear. Russia did this as well in Ukraine and got lambasted for it yet I rarely hear about how Israel killed journalists like Shireen Abu Akleh. Because people love to cut context like this out of their worldview.

And I think restricting context and acting like anything started recently is an inaccurate way to frame what’s going on. This conflict has been going on far longer than a week. Wars don’t just pop up out of nowhere, they are based on context from before the war.

Hamas didn’t exist at the start of the conflict actually. They formed in response to and with funding from Israel in the 80s and 90s.

Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.

You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.

Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.

Yes both should be regulated.

That said, Google and Meta don’t have any desire to geopolitically cripple the US so there is a difference between the two depending on your region.

I don’t think you care about their optics beyond brow beating them for having an opinion that upsets you.

Not classifying all democracies as democracy and capitalism aren’t a bonded pair. When dollars are votes, the system will be democracy amongst the wealthy as they have more votes with their greater number of dollars. Those without capital will inherently have their voices heard less.

Thus it is a system that claims democracy but only the oligarchs truly get their voices heard. This leads to a type of dictatorship of the wealthy. If it was a true democracy then why are so many policies popular among the lower classes getting ignored in favor of tax loopholes for corporations? Why did billions of PPP get given out to businesses and forgiven with no fuss but ~2k for struggling families saw intense opposition and weak support?