Because most people do not react the way you do. You do your best to teach kids why it’s wrong and have them correct behavior but letting them do whatever they want and not escalating when needed is a bad strategy as well. This works well in most children. To expect most parents today, much less 30 years ago to be able to closely identify what might be going on under the surface as well as a professional is unrealistic.

Which search engine was running without ads? Were any of those streaming sites paying content creators? Was your streaming site handing traffic for more than 10 users? What was your outgoing bandwidth bill from your ISP?

And did you pay those people? How much money were they able to make off their artistic efforts?

What services were free and not ad supported that survived unlimited VC funds from the 90s?

👌👍

I’m not saying there isn’t crap in the private sector, but in my experience government really sucks managing IT.

Have you ever worked for government IT? Most of it is ages behind private sector.

It seems like it was one of those old systems from the earlier days that somehow was overlooked. It’s not great but I understand how it happens if they didn’t have strong monitoring and system ownership.

Blah blah blah blah old man yells at sky

👌👍

Do you pay for nebula?

You want regulations on ads for a free service?

The entitlement is wild.

Free money is coming back!

The large majority of open source tools that are used in mass have significant commercial backing.

Yes many users could make more money from patron only. Very few do in the tall world. Their primary source of income is YT. Because people don’t use the patrons.

You can have a diverse community that has a large majority opinion. And what I said is certainly the prevailing opinion.

And to answer you about your personal view: You are stealing the right to distribution and taking money away from both corporations but more importantly creators. And I’ve seen the rates of direct donations eg patrons . It’s not ideological for most people, it’s about getting content for free.

Are you donating to every channel you are watching? I doubt it. Even the people who care mostly only donate directly to one of two top patrons, while still consuming many many more.

If you are actually donating, then good for you, I congratulate you for living what you preach and have zero qualms. But you would be a statistical edge case.

Oh right, in the magical world where people are giving their money away. The majority of content creators would of left your platform. But it’s okay it’s easy to steal their right to distribution and handwave it away as not a problem.

Because you have not set up that agreement and the vast majority of people don’t pay outside of ads or a singular monthly sub.

The next best thing is nebula which has 600,000 monthly subs at $5. Which means a maximum payout pool of 18M a year.

Look at the number of users vs donations. The only reason this place works is low traffic and low bandwidth. The vision you describe would be great but it’s not going to happen. ESPECIALLY once users are forced to pay rather than getting shit for free.

“Google shouldn’t be allowed to operate as a loss leader” - Reddit and Lemmy

“Paying for the service? Fuck that” - Also lemmy and Reddit.

I do empathize but your mental health isn’t my responsibility. If you don’t wear a seatbelt I didn’t give a fuck. But let’s take your strawman a bit further, video games have been shown to cause agressiness and anti social behavior. Do you support banning them all? What is, in your opinion, where the state should step in to protect people from themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790614/#:~:text=001%2C 95%25 CI = [,%2C participant sex%2C and age.

The following was removed for misinformation. The coward ass mods should at least be forced to identify which part of the truth they are trying to cover up. Ban me, I’ll be back in a day with a new name.

Prices didn’t double and yes rates tripling from historic lows is fine. Home ownership rates are up from a dip with millennials. Gen z is about on par with gen x. According to the Census Bureau, 38.6% of those under 35 are homeowners; 62.6% of those aged 35-44; 70.5% of those aged 45-54; 75.7% of those aged 55-64; 79% of those over 65. We should certainly try to make home ownership more attainable but it’s far from the hellscape and hyperbole.